- 04:54 AM
- 11/08/09
This column on ESPN pretty much sums up my feelings on Manuel.
And at some point, isn't it the players' responsibility to perform (and cover third on the Damon steal)? Jimmy Rollins, Shane Victorino, Ryan Howard (10 strikeouts!) and Raul Ibanez are all at, or below, the Mendoza Line. They need to get going because Chase Utley can't do it alone. And even Utley, as productive as he's been (another home run and an RBI double Sunday), will need to break out against a pitcher not named Sabathia. He is 4-for-6 with three homers and a double against CC but 0-for-9 against everyone else.
posted by justgary at 11:25 PM on November 06
If we had gotten a game 7, the decision to start Cole Hamels over Cliff Lee was huge.
We had an interesting discussion, but I don't think there was ever a thought to pitch Lee. Did I miss where Manuel even suggested it was possible? And as I said in the other thread, Lee gave up 5 in 7 on full rest. I'm not sure how you could even expect that level of performance on 2 days.
Another thing I've been meaning to bring up was Manuel's decision to let Pedro Martinez face Hideki Matsui in the third inning. At that point, Matsui had homered in the second inning and was 8-for-18 with four doubles, two homers and four RBIs against Martinez in postseason play. I think he had gotten a hit in every at-bat versus Martinez in this series.
But that was already a part of my award winning game analysis. I thought it was the worst move of the series. Pedro had nothing. Unforgivable to leave him in against Matsui.
I think this was a close series, but Manuel's managing blew the Phillies' chance and will hang around his neck like an albatross.
A play here, a play there, it could have gone the other way. But I don't think it was that close. I think the Yankees were clearly superior, and only held back by a lack of starting pitching depth; a problem they'll solve over the off season.
And I disagree about Manuel. He made mistakes, but when your closer is horrid and your cleanup hitter hits .174 there's only so much you can do. It's much easier to just pencil in Rivera to finish off every game.
posted by justgary at 11:18 PM on November 06
This thread has no game analysis, no series analysis, really nothing much except for protracted attempts to diminish the accomplishments of the victors.
What I said in this thread:
But the phillies also have themselves to blame. Werth being picked off first. Not covering 3rd and allowing Damon to steal two bases. Victorino misjudging a flyball last night. Mistake after mistake. Not even including Pedro being allowed to face Matsui with an 85 mph fastball.
But they weren't going to win with 3 runs anyway. I thought it was a pretty pathetic performance by the Phillies outside of Lee and Utley. They deserved to lose.
Did you want deeper series analysis? Is that why you ignored what I wrote? Sure, nothing I wrote wasn't apparent to most fans, but it was far more detailed than anything on the first page of the forum you linked.
But I don't think that much analysis is necessary. The yankees won because they had the better team. I don't think it was that close. So why are the Yankees so much better? Well, for one, they have the money to sign better players, to have a deeper team. I find that topic interesting. Not only in the aspect of the Yankee WS victory, but in baseball as a whole. Will other teams spend more? Will the Yankees spend less?
You pointed to the BBTD forum, and I've read one page. I have no idea what I've suppose to take from that. If you enjoy it, great. Different forums appeal to different people.
I'm not denying chemistry is involved. I find it ludicrous to believe it has more to do than the talent of the team. That's just my opinion. You can disagree. You can bring it up. I'm not sure where the discussion goes from there, however. And when I quoted what you wrote about the Yankee team your responded sarcastically. I'm guessing you have a point that I'm missing, but it appears you simply wish to argue and play the martyr.
posted by justgary at 10:55 PM on November 06
Second, there's nothing bleak about the Rogers Hornsby quote. It's a beautiful testament to the greatness of baseball.
First comment in the 2007 Red Sox WS victory thread:
Time to start the countdown to pitchers and catchers.
posted by justgary at 10:32 PM on November 06
Why can't the community discuss both?
They can. But if members would rather discuss the payroll advantage than the fact that CC takes players out to dinner, then you can either join in or ignore it.
The Yankees have had this enormous financial advantage for several years. Why is this the first time they've won?
It's been answered multiple times in this thread. Because they finally spent the money wisely. Signing an old Roger Clemens, bad. CC, good. Giambi as a first baseman, bad. Texiera, good. Why is the 2009 team better than 08? Because statistically they're better.
I don't think it's a mystery why the Yankees won. In fact, I'm not sure much in sports is clearer. If someone wants to believe it's because of Chemistry, have at it.
And why should Yankee fans be banished to another site to discuss it?
Don't read more into my comment than is there. I said that if Yankee fans want to ignore the payroll and talk about Chemistry, this site probable isn't for them. In other words, they probably aren't going to be happy.
posted by justgary at 10:27 PM on November 06
Here's the thread from the Phillies championship last year.
Here's the team payrolls for 2008. Certainly you can see why no one brought up payroll in that thread.
The chemistry of the team has been a storyline all year. Girardi drops a day of training to take the club out to play pool. CC takes everybody out to dinner. Nick Swisher is apparently told to crank up the music in the clubhouse. AJ starts throwing pies at guys, and the New York media starts losing their minds over whether or not that fits the "Yankee Way."
Honestly, if someone wants to have discussions on CC taking everyone out to dinner, and nick swisher playing music, and AJ throwing pies, this isn't the site for them. It never has been, and hopefully never will be. There are at least 10 yankee sites I know where you can romanticize the championship and talk about what a difference team chemistry made this year and completely ignore the payroll.
That an intelligent sports community should ignore what is measurable and real and instead discuss AJ throwing pies, well, again, seems comical.
posted by justgary at 09:29 PM on November 06
In the context of the postings, it is a power stat. Justgary stated that ARod was performing better because he had a higher OPS than Jeter. The slugging factor in OPS is important for a cleanup hitter. It is far less important for a leadoff hitter.
Playoff OBP for Jeter = .383. Playoff OBP for ARod = .409
Breaking it down, only in the divisional series does Jeter have a better OBP (.417 / .364). In the league championship series it's not even close with ARod leading .462 to .347 (ARod has higher WS OBP but isn't a good comparison since Jeter's sample size is so much bigger).
If it's the job of a lead off hitter is too get on base, ARod would be a better leadoff hitter. No matter what math you want to use, Arod's a better hitter.
posted by justgary at 04:25 PM on November 06
justgary, I think we're both saying the same thing. But can you honestly say last year's team was worse on paper than the Rays?
No. I agree with you. I just put the fact that the Yankees have failed in the past with high payrolls more to money spent badly and baseball being an unpredictable game than failing to strive under pressure. Not that the pressure isn't entered into the whole thing.
I don't buy the chemistry angle, I don't buy the 'their having more fun' this year bit. But does having Texiera make ARod better? Perhaps take some pressure off? Perhaps. But that still is a function of payroll.
See Point V of the Official DrJohnEvans SpoFi Platform.
Funny. I just saw that on your profile yesterday. I would add my signature.
The Yankees can outbid any team for any player they choose, but they also have the resources to keep any player they choose as well.
The Yankees also have an advantage in that for most players, they really only need to match another teams offer. I would think it's like being a designer and working for Apple. That has a lot of cache. To be a Yankee, for a lot of players, is another feather in their cap. We're talking about huge egos. I have little doubt that Texiera and Damon came to the Yankees partly because of who they were. I have little doubt that Clemens came to the Yankees thinking "I've the greatest pitcher ever, I want to be associated with the greatest sports franchise ever". That it didn't work out is a fact that I treasure.
And no, this isn't an advantage that I'm complaining about. They've earned it because of their history. But added to the payroll advantage it's huge. I don't think Texiera would have gone to anyone else for 10 million more. If it was close, he was going to be a Yankee.
I hate that the discussion has focused on the Yankees cheating. It's a red herring. Of course they didn't cheat. I don't know what the answer is. Salary floor? Salary cap? I don't see how anyone can be a Yankee fan or hater and not believe there's a problem with competition. And saying "they played within the rules and good for them for putting money back into the team" is completely missing the problem.
By far the fastest "move on" after the series that I can remember.
It's funny around here. Normally you see Braves and Red Sox caps. I assumed it was because people in New York were less inclined to move down south. But for the last couple of days I've seen more Yankee caps than I have in the last year. They're all so new and shiny.
Here's what the Yankees can't buy.
Joba then went straight to his favorite strip club. The one hater aspect I will admit to is that I'm very happy the Yankees won the WS in spite of Joba. I mean, I hate picking on the mentally challenged, but I'll make an exception for Joba.
posted by justgary at 03:06 PM on November 06
Like it or not the guy is or was a role model for a lot of young people
Perfect time to sit little Johnny down and explain that just because a person can throw a ball 95 mph that doesn't make 'em a good role model. At the same time you can explain to little Johnny that marijuana should be legalized. Hopefully both lessons sink in.
posted by justgary at 02:23 PM on November 06
Glad to see you agree with me. That's exactly what I said. I'm assuming you read it since you responded to it. So where did the lack of understanding come from?
No, you blamed Manual for a play that should be automatic to a major league infield.
Every team uses this strategy, even in regular season games, nontheless the playoffs. And not just for 14 year olds. Armchair coaches are equipped with that knowledge.
Armchair coaches usually have no idea what they're talking about. Look, if you want to put 'not taking trips to the mound' in the why phillies lost column, be my guest. It's not even worth arguing for me.
I don't imagine you'd want to do that all year," Gibson said. "But for playoffs and World Series . . . if you can't do it then, when the hell can you do it? I don't quite get it."
I'm happy to be on the side of Gibson, Schilling and Koufax. I'd pitch Lee.
If you're going to appeal to authority go ahead and ask Gibson if he wanted the manager coming out to talk to him.
Lee was never going to pitch game 7. He couldn't do it. You can dig up walter johnson and I'm sure he'd say that he would have pitched all 7 games if necessary. That's not the reality in todays game.
And again, here's what you conveniently ignore. Lee gave up 5 runs in 7 innings on full rest. And now you're going to give him the ball after 2 days, something even Sabathia didn't do.
Hamels was the right choice for game 7, but the way the Phillies hit, it wouldn't have mattered.
posted by justgary at 11:21 PM on November 05
They have been for decades the best team money can buy.
I guess I understand you (honestly, not trying to be thick). I'm not sure how much of a compliment playing up to their abilities is. They didn't choke, I agree. I mean, if you have to choose between a team with average talent and team with great talent, go with the great talent. It's easier to overcome pressure than a lack of talent.
They have been for decades the best team money can buy.
Not decades. This is relatively new (2000 on). And they've spend the most money, they haven't had the best team. There's a difference. This year they did, and yes, they played like it.
and have fun doing it
Winning is fun, yes. I promise the Red Sox had much more fun on the field this year than the Royals.
Paying ARod (et al) what they did didn't make him hit better, it just put a great hitter in place. And until this year, he wasn't the best hitter in baseball when it mattered.
Again, I'm not sure what to think of this. They put all these great hitters in place, but paying them all that money didn't make them hit? Great players hit great no matter what you pay them. But you've got to pay them to get them.
As far as ARod, his playoff OPS is .977. Jeter's is .863. ARod has performed better in the post season. Only using a small sample size (very recently) backs up the whole ARod isn't clutch idea.
posted by justgary at 09:04 PM on November 05
I think Posnanski wants to have his cake and eat it too.
I don't see that at all. I don't see anywhere in the article where he's calling the Yankees cheaters or placing blame on New York. He didn't even tackle how to solve it.
He's simply giving the current state of competitiveness in baseball.
posted by justgary at 08:10 PM on November 05
The Yankees signed the top 3 free agents over the off season to hopefully christen the new stadium with a championship (and get it done before big George bites the dust). They did it completely within the rules of MLB, and in that way, mission accomplished.
But the phillies also have themselves to blame. Werth being picked off first. Not covering 3rd and allowing Damon to steal two bases. Victorino misjudging a flyball last night. Mistake after mistake. Not even including Pedro being allowed to face Matsui with an 85 mph fastball.
But they weren't going to win with 3 runs anyway. I thought it was a pretty pathetic performance by the Phillies outside of Lee and Utley. They deserved to lose.
Assembled with truckloads of money or not, they still had to play the game.
posted by smithnyiu
I'm not even sure what this means. It reads like a players favorite cliche. "We're gonna play one game at a time". Well, duh, You kind of have to. And of course they still have to play the game. They'd still have to play the game if the Yankees spent 500 million, or played St. Marys School of the Blind. The fact that they have to still play the game doesn't nullify the financial advantage.
My favorite paragraph from the Posnanski piece:
So you have this sport that tends to equalize teams. That helps blur the dominance of the Yankees. If the New England Patriots were allowed to spend $50 million more on players than any other team, they would go 15-1 or 16-0 every single year. And people would not stand for it. But in baseball, a great and dominant team might only win 95 out of 160, and it doesn't seem so bad.
And I think that's one reason it's easier to ignore the payroll discrepancy. But playing the yankees and considering them 'just another team in the league that our favorite team must compete against' is ignoring the elephant in the room. Your team isn't playing just another team, and it's ignoring the obvious to think otherwise (not caring is another thing altogether).
It's not up to the Yankees to trim payroll. It's not up to Yankee fans to care how large the payroll gets. It's up to the league to make sure the game is competitive. But as long as MLB makes money, and with the Yankees being loved and hated by nearly everyone they're the golden goose, that's not going to happen. Until (most) fans realize that they're supporting a team that has little to no chance of winning (look at the teams that made the playoffs. High majority large payroll teams) and stop going to the ballpark, nothing will change.
Believing that most cities could spend the amount the Yankees do is flat out delusional. And I can see why most teams don't try. It's not as simple as increasing payroll, because there's no guarantee that the Yankees won't spend more. Does anyone really believe the Yankee ceiling is 200 million? The Yankees will get who they want, regardless. Most teams can't compete, and I see no incentive without a salary cap.
I know Yankee fans get tired of the payroll debate, but I think it's a legitmate issue. I know we've lost good sportsfilter members that get tired of it. On the other side you can go to a Yankee forum and you will see almost no mention of payroll, like the advantage doesn't exist; everyone's on a level playing field.
The reason I linked the Posnanski is not only because I think he has strong points, but if anyone has read his blog they'll know he hasn't shown any hatred towards the Yankees. He's a Royals fan.
Labeling everyone 'haters' because they'd like a more competitive league is nonsense. And it seems to me, that if someone is a baseball fan first, before a Red Sox, Yankee, Royal, Twin fan, they'd be interested in a league filled with teams that, in a realistic sense, have a chance on opening day.
The Yankees won't win 27 championships out of the next 30, of course. And that's good for the Yankees, because the irony is that the Yankees need to lose to give any meaning to their championships. It's the only way to point at the payroll discrepancy and say 'see, you can't buy a championship'. It's aura and history and chemistry. They have baseball to thank for that.
posted by justgary at 08:06 PM on November 05
This thread existed for almost two hours before someone had to make a comment that offered not the least congratulations to the winners, not the least acknowledgment of their excellent performance, but that sought to diminish it.
I looked at the 2004 Red Sox championship thread, you know, the one where I finally knew I wouldn't die without seeing them win it all, and I saw no congrats signed by lil brown bat. You did however, write a couple of comments hoping the sox fans wouldn't riot.
So your words ring a little hollow.
(you did offer congrats in 2007.)
posted by justgary at 06:49 PM on November 05
I made mention that I thought they would come out as expected and they did and will. I liked this forum because people could speak their mind, if those days are gone then ban me since I wont be back anyway. LAME...
I'm curious what you believe a troll to be? Discussing the yankees winning the world series and not team salaries is impossible. That's not trolling. Disagreeing with you is not trolling. I'm not trying to shut you up, I wasn't threatening to ban you. I'm simply asking you not to accuse others of trolling. If you have any questions just email me.
posted by justgary at 06:00 PM on November 05
I haven't had a chance to sit down and gather my thoughts, but as usual, Joe Posnanski nails it for me:
You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.
This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com, and I'm going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees payroll, I found them to be stunning:
In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.
In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.
In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it's ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: "OK, let's spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we're spending exactly as much. And now let's add the Oakland A's. No, I mean let's add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let's play some ball!"
In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.
In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.
In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team cutbacks, you know.
In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.
In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team.
---
There's something else that people say: They talk about how money doesn't guarantee wins. And they point out that other teams (the Mets, the Cubs, the Astros, etc.) spend a lot of money and don't win. I think this actually makes for an interesting argument if you want to talk about the inequities of baseball big markets, small markets, all that.
But the Yankees are a whole different argument. They are their own argument. The Yankees are not a big market team. They DWARF big market teams. They are quantitatively different from every other team in baseball and every other team in American sports. They don't just spend more money than every other team. They spend A LOT more money than every other team. The Boston Red Sox spend $50 million more than the Kansas City Royals? Who cares? The Yankees spend $80 million more than the Boston Red Sox.
---
This is the way baseball is structured, and we have reached a point where people simply don't want to hear any griping about it. Don't like it? Don't watch. Some people have stopped watching, I suppose. But many of us keep on because we love baseball and there's enough randomness in the game itself and enough volatility in the playoffs to distract us from the lunacy of having the game so ridiculously tilted toward one team.
The trouble is that, inevitably, that one team will make good choices. They will put together a team of All-Stars. They will sign a dominant left-handed starter and slugging switch-hitting Gold Glove first baseman and a right-handed starter who throws curveballs that bend like wiffle balls. That team will be a remarkable collection of stars, and they will play often beautiful baseball, and they will win more games than any other team during the season. That team will roll through the playoffs without facing an elimination game or anything resembling real drama though there will be constant efforts to make it SEEM like there's drama.
And then: That team that spent $50 million more than any other team, that team with three sure Hall of Famers and as many as four others, that team that bought Milwaukee's best pitcher and Anaheim's best hitter and Toronto's No. 2 starter and Boston's favorite Idiot and the most expensive player in the history of baseball and so on, that team will win the World Series, and spray champagne on each other, and they will tell you that they won because they came together as a group and kept pulling themselves off the ground and didn't listen to the doubters.
The rest of the article is dead on also, but I suppose I've copied and pasted enough.
Just so you know, Donny Baseballs last season was 1995. The Yankees have 5 world series rings since then. What exactly is your point? posted by pullmyfinger
You might want to google 'curse of don mattingly' and then comment when you're not in the dark.
posted by justgary at 04:41 PM on November 05
How much have the Cubs spent since 1908? How much did the Red Sox spend from 1918 to 2004? posted by mr_crash_davis
You're mixing two different eras that have nothing in common since free agency came into play. Up until the 2000s the yankees were not that different in payroll, much more inline with the the league curve. In 1999 they were only a little over 10 million above the next highest paying ball club.
Since 2001? The yankees have spent 500 million more than the red sox, and have won half as many championships (2001-2009 yankees: 1,578,299,197; 2001-2009 red sox: 1,087,054,090) as the red sox.
Since 2001, the yankees have outspent the marlins by 1.2 billion dollars and won the same number of championships as the marlins did during that time.(2001-2009 yankees: 1,578,299,197; 2001-2009 marlins: 332,995,293.
Actually, the NFL is one of the most popular sports out there
Popularity does not necessarily correlate with quality. Kenny G is one of the top selling 'jazz' musicians alive and he pretty much sucks.
Wow, look at all the Hate Trolls coming out again. good to see you again boys. I'll look forward another rewarding winter of the same ole same ole.
Firecop, trolling is a bannable offense on sportsfilter. I'm not sure you understand what trolling is, and I don't see any, though you're coming pretty close. So feel free to call people haterz (I'm a big fan of MTV too) but lay off on calling people trolls.
posted by justgary at 04:13 PM on November 05
If he's getting help from the umpires, it's not showing up in any statistical fashion.
Damn statistics.
On left handers Rivera does one of two things. He either throws the cutter down the middle, it breaks in, and hitters either miss the pitch, or hit it somewhere weakly. They're jammed. He also throws it outside, and it breaks over the corner.
A good example was the strikeout of Howard earlier in the series on a pitch well off the outside corner. I'm not trying to ignore your statistics, and I've fully aware that my opinion is biased and probably a victim of a couple of other words you can find on wikipedia. Still, if I were a hitter I would let any borderline pitches go against Rivera in the World Series.
That said, I should have kept that to myself. And again, I don't think that's why he's great. I think it has much more to do with control and the fact that very few hitters connect with the fat part of the bat.
It's the same thing as a Nolan Ryan fastball; you know it's coming, but you still can't hit it.
I will say that I don't think this comparison holds much water. Rivera is a true one pitch pitcher who survives and inning at a time (two at the most). I don't think you'd see the same success over 7 innings.
Ryan had a devastating curveball. Take that way, and his fastball, and success, wouldn't have been as great. The curveball made the fastball that much more unhittable. Rivera's cutter is unhittable all on it's own (for a limited time at least).
posted by justgary at 02:09 PM on November 04
I am a manager at the the 13-14 yr level.
Yes, and these are players at the highest level. There shouldn't be an open base. This shouldn't happen regardless of the manager.
Allowing Lidge to throw fastballs at the end of game 4.
Lidge has 2 pitches. One is a fastball. It wasn't that it was a fastball, it was that it was poorly located. I haven't read where manuel ordered a fastball. But since that's the only way your point has validity, I'll assume I missed that. But you seem to let Girardi off the hook for pitching to Utley when he's killed them. At what point does Girardi make someone else beat them? At what point do you hold Girardi to the same standard you hold Manuel?
Almost no visits to the mound to settle things down, refocus players and review strategy during the difficult innings where the Yanks have made big comebacks.
You're really reaching now. These are not rookies. Lee, Pedro are veterans. Hamels was the WS mvp last year. They're use to pressure. The managers know their pitchers. They should be able to tell when they're rattled. These are not your 14 year old kids.
Let's see...anything else?
Yes, something that makes sense. If the yankees win tonight it will be because they're the better team. This has not been a series decided by the managers.
Put your ace on the mound in game 7 and live with result.
Brilliant. Let's take the guy that just gave up 5 runs in 7 innings on full rest, and put him on the mound with 2 days rest, when he hasn't even tried to pitch on 3 days rest. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Unless there's an emergency (cole is found sobbing in his locker and no one else is available) you pitch cole and hope for the best. That's your team. Good or bad. I'm sure they'd like to have Lee on the mound every game. That's not reality.
The far bigger problem is scoring runs. If they continue to score 2 runs in 7/8 innings off Sabathia it won't make a difference who they start.
If Jeter doesn't hit into a DP, we may have been having an entirely different discussion.
And if the ball hit off rivera the ended in the mistaken double play would have been a line drive off the wall he would have been in trouble. And if, if, if...
You need to take that line and shoot it with a 45.
Despite what you believe about Jeter he's always a prime chance for a double play ball. Madson did exactly what he was suppose to do. Made a perfect pitch and jammed jeter to get a week ground ball.
and the Yanks are a team known for late-inning heroics
The yankee lineup is devastating pretty much from top to bottom. They score a lot of runs, more than any team in MLB. Those runs don't stop in the later innings. They score runs early, middle, and late. I'm not sure why doing so is heroic, but it seems to be a popular word.
posted by justgary at 02:08 PM on November 04
And they couldn't be more different. Reggie reveled in it all with curtain calls, while Utley seems to avoid any and all attention. I don't know what he'd do if he signed with the Yankees who take almost any home run as curtain call time.
Not to take away from the badass performance of Utley, and I'm no Yankee fan, but isn't Derek Jeter "Mr. November"?
Jeter also won the Hank Aaron award for being the American League's best hitter, even though he's not close to being the best hitter on his own team. It's amazing that as great a career as Jeter has had, and it's been a good one, he's so consistently over-rated.
posted by justgary at 05:09 PM on November 03
When it comes to Burnett I'm reminded of the Dennis Green line: He is who we thought he was.
As I said in the previous WS thread, the fact that the Yankees are forced to go with a 3 man rotation is what gives the Phillies a chance. That's not Girardi's fault. He's playing the hand he was given. But it's one of the only short comings of this Yankee team. If they have a decent/average 4th starter that gives them 6 innings and 4 runs the Yankees are probably celebrating today.
Now they go to a 37 year old Pettitte, who supposedly told teammates he had 'nothing' his last start, on short rest. Maybe he's got it in him, but again, a 4 man staff and he's rested.
I still think the Yankees will win the series. They've got too much hitting, and the Phillies don't have enough pitching, but I'd love to see Pedro take it to game 7. I think all the pressure would be on NY.
It's pretty amazing, if Lidge holds the Yankees in game 4 maybe the Phillies pull it out and the Yankees are going to NY down 3 games to 2.
but they are being outmanaged as well? Manuel has made some questionable decisions this WS.
Care to give examples? Taking out Victorino? Bringing Lidge in when he's struggled? It's pretty easy to be Girardi when you have Rivera to bring in. Not a whole lot of managing there.
Girardi has been criticized for over managing from game 1 of the playoffs. The problem is not that he's out managing Manuel (though his 8 trips to the mound a game is impressive).
Given the fact that he has been performing so poorly and now appears to have given up, I would find it hard to put him into a WS game.
I don't think it's a tough decision at all. It's a no-brainer. You pitch Cole with a short leash as you would any pitcher when you're in a 7th game. Unless the Phillies know something more (he's breaking down) you take the comment for what it is, a dumb comment made out of frustration.
If you had told the Phillies a game ago that they would be in a game 7 with last years WS MVP on the mound, sure, the odds are in Sabathia's favor, but they would have taken it in a heart beat.
Speaking of lights-out guys... can someone please explain why Mariano Rivera is still so wildly successful?
1. He's lost velocity, but still has great location. Nothing is over the middle of the plate.
2. His reputation. I have no doubt teams get nervous when it's they see him trot in.
3. Generous strike zone. All star pitchers get it. Rivera does more than most. You can see it almost every game he pitches.
(I'm not saying a generous strike zone is why he's still so good, but it doesn't hurt, and it helps more now than when he was pitching 95.)
posted by justgary at 05:03 PM on November 03
But I think Girardi's bet is likely to pay off before that.
Agreed. He's going for the quick series.
posted by justgary at 06:47 PM on November 02
It sure looks like it's the Yankees year. They have the better team, home field, they're playing better, the little breaks seem to be going their way. I can't think of any advantage the phillies have right now.
They have to hope Lee recreates game 1, hope Pedro rises to the occasion and the phillies remember Pettitte is a pitcher they should hit in game 6, and then Cole has the game of his life while hoping sabathia's arm falls off in game 7. In other words, a miracle.
And Lidge has to be able to throw his slider with a runner on third. He's a closer. What good is closer that can't come in with a runner on third. He had 4 wild pitches during the season. So the idea that he can't throw his slider with a runner on 3rd is BS. It doesn't take the pitch away, I don't care what Tim McCarver says.
Joba Chamberlain, while wallowing in misery in the dugout for blowing the lead on the Feliz home run, got the win.
Watching the big lug look like he might break down and sob was at least a small consolation. I'm sure after the game they gave him a lollypop and a yoyo and he quickly forgot the outing.
posted by justgary at 05:58 PM on November 02
I see nothing wrong with wanting your ace to give you as much as he can.
I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I said that because NY was going with a 3 man staff the phillies might could take advantage of it by stretching the series out. C.C. might throw 7 shut out innings in a 7th game, but he might not. If I were them, I'd want to find out.
posted by justgary at 05:47 PM on November 02
The Yankees spent money on Sabathia, a huge, workhorse pitcher who can handle the load.
The yankees thought that chamberlain would be their 4th starter. There was also the injury to Wang. They didn't spend money on Sabathia thinking they didn't need a 4th starter.
Sabathia is a workhorse, yes. It's still one of the only chinks in the Yankee armor. They not only want to go to sabathia, they HAVE to go to sabathia. There is no other viable option. I agree. they don't want to watch Gaudin pitch on the road. That's the problem. If it wasn't a problem, they'd sit on their hands during the off season. I'm guessing they won't do that.
posted by justgary at 04:23 PM on November 01
The Phillies have to do better than 4 runs in 8 innings in a game started by Pettitte. But the game once again showed the depth of an all-star lineup with the forgotten swisher contributing.
The only hope I see for the Phillies to dig themselves out of their hole is to try and extend the series any way possible. Girardi is trying to win by using Sabathia and Rivera (3 runs down, really?) until their arms fall off. 200 million apparently doesn't buy a 4th starter (Imagine how dominating the Yankees will be when they buy another free agent pitcher over the off season). Extend the series, see how Sabathia and Rivera look in a game 7. But they have a lot of work to get there.
We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that," Davis said. "Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it's a] home run.
So if the ball hits the camera, even if it's leaning over the field, it's a home run, because the umpires have NO control over the cameras. Comical.
posted by justgary at 02:49 PM on November 01
Agreed. What I failed to say is that I did not think it changed the outcome of the game. Burnett had the Phillies in handcuffs all night.
Yep, I agree with that. Chances are Burnett get a double play ball the way he was pitching last night. But any time a pitcher is pitching well base running mistakes, any mistakes, take on greater importance. If the phillies have 10 hits, werth's mistake is probably a footnote. But with just 4 hits, giving one back is a back breaker.
Especially with someone like Burnett who can look like a hall of famer in one instance and a little leaguer in the next.
posted by justgary at 10:34 PM on October 30
Not sure it changed the game though...Just embarrassing for Jason.
Well, of course it changes the game. The only question is to what extent, which is impossible to tell.
I agree with Joe Posnanski when he said something along the lines of 'I don't know if I believe in momentum, but it seemed to shift after that play".
posted by justgary at 01:45 PM on October 30
Philadelphia manager Charlie Manuel didn't argue the call when it happened, but it was clearly eating at him after the game. Without even being asked about the play, he blurted out, "I'll tell you something else: Utley was safe. Go look. Yeah, he was safe."
And it turns out he's right. After the game, the six-man umpiring crew took a look at the replay and conceded they didn't get the call right.
"On the freeze frame it looks like there's a little bit of the ball outside (Mark Teixeira's) glove when (Utley) hit the base," Gorman said.
-----
Does anyone else feel like the Phillies have the edge here, based on how few runs the Yankees have scored and how dominant and unflappable Lee was in game 1?
I like the Phillies chances. If they can take game 3, I think they're in the drivers seat, though I guess that's not going out on a limb.
I thought the Yankees bullpen would be an advantage, but Hughes being hit hard lately and Joba being relegated to playing with his etch n sketch I'm not so sure anymore.
posted by justgary at 01:03 PM on October 30
Got a video replay of this to back your claim up? He looked out to me.
I'm not going to scourge the internet for prove that the runner was safe, but the replay showed that the runner was safe. I saw no doubt. The announcers showed no doubt. Everything I've read today says the runner was out.
You're questioning the call. Not sure why you're not backing it up.
posted by justgary at 12:51 PM on October 30
A problem is that in a college setting not only do you have to overcome Southern tradition but also college tradition (and the ignorance and rebellion of youth). When I was at the University of South Alabama the confederate flag was much more prevalent on campus (by far) than anywhere else outside of campus.
After graduating from UGA, I've lived in Minnesota the last couple years, and yea, it's different up here. In Georgia, everything seemed to center around race.
Given that Minnesota isn't in the South (therefore lacks its history) and has an African-American population of 4.6 compared to the national average of 12.8 (Georgia 30 percent) I'm not sure exactly what that proves.
What to do in case of a blizzard isn't a hot topic in Hawaii either.
posted by justgary at 12:38 PM on October 30
Werth being picked off was huge. The game seemed to change from that point on. Inexcusable.
I've been waiting for Rivera to falter for 2 years now. The announcers are quick to point out that Pedro isn't the same pitcher and surviving on guile, but seem to be oblivious to Rivera now throwing his one pitch at a constant 89 mph, well off what he use to throw.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the top of the 8th without the blow call.
posted by justgary at 12:09 PM on October 30
he does the song justice and Sinatra would be proud.
Sinatra would rip off his head if he was still alive. He's probably rolling in his grave over your comment. Have you no respect for the dead?
McCarver is good only in comparison of how bad most expect him to be. Here's a review that gives it 3 out of 5 stars. Then again, not sure how reliable it is. It goes on:
Tim McCarver was a heck of a baseball player and is, despite the fact that many of you find his broadcasting annoying, a fantastic color analyst who teaches us more about the game with each passing telecast.
posted by justgary at 12:14 AM on October 30
At the very least this makes things interesting.
Here's what Heyman of sports illustrated said on twitter about Lee's catch of Damon's pop-up:
"not sure, but i think lee was mocking damon by catching that popup while barely looking. cant say i blame him."
I have no idea why he thinks that, or if he knows something others don't, or if I'm missing something obvious (not that I'm against any mocking of Damon).
And you could sense that thousands of Yankees fans were rolling their eyes.
And you could sense one Cliff Lee not giving a damn.
posted by justgary at 06:49 PM on October 29
This belongs in the post, not the ny times. I thought it was going to be the usual claim that the Yankees are good for baseball because everyone cares; they either love them or hate them. There's some truth to that.
But then he goes on to basically say that the WS has been a blowout without the Yankees, and I'm not sure how the hell the Yankees being in the WS assures it won't be more of the same.
Then again, I heard a few Yankee fans saying what a great series the Angels series was, so maybe it's victory = great series for New Yorkers.
posted by justgary at 07:22 PM on October 27
I think the Phillies have a fighters chance. The problem with the Yankees is that their lineup is so devastating from top to bottom. And with CC pitching 3 games a series, they're pitching is solid, and Rivera is closing the ninth.
So a team can't survive on just pitching, or hitting, and the angels didn't have enough of either. Their hitting wasn't consistent enough (if you're shut down by todays Andy Pettitte you deserve to lose), and their pitching wasn't deep enough. The Yankees are going to kill mediocre pitching.
And yet still the Angels had a chance but decided to play like the bad news bears in the last game.
The Phillies don't have New York's lineup, but they can score runs. And unlike the Angels, I don't think they're intimidated at all. So the question to me is do they have enough pitching. They're depending on pedro in game 2, and he could throw a masterpiece, but his selection alone says no. But maybe they get to CC, and Pedro is old Pedro, and...
At the very least, I hope they make the Yankees earn it.
Two more WS links:
Now, I certainly wouldn't argue the Phillies don't have a chance this year, because each of the effects were even more pronounced last year and the Phillies won the World Series, 4-1, over the Tampa Bay Rays. But it still looks, at least on paper, that whoever wins the A.L. should be a heavy favorite over whoever wins the N.L. even without considering the 10-game difference in games won for these particular A.L. and N.L. teams.
But maybe the Yankees win and maybe Microsoft wins and maybe the rest of us will have the put up with yet another round of insufferable arrogance from the fat billionaire blowhard that runs, well, either one. Yes, ultimately, it comes down to what happens on the field, in the competition, and there's enough lumbering muscle on both bullies to walk away with another round of lunch money. But for anybody with any heart, there's nothing better than watching Goliath go down.
posted by justgary at 06:15 PM on October 27
Easily one of the best features of twitter: taking the PR out from between the Athlete/Celebrity and fan relationship. Their thoughts, unfiltered, show they're just as screwed up as anyone. Sometimes more.
posted by justgary at 10:24 AM on October 27
In the last 89 years, the Yankees have won 39 pennants.
You have to understand, I know yankee fans love to quote the 39 pennants and 26? 27? WS victories. A lot of fans don't really include victories before their father was born in the present view of their team. I almost never celebrate the Red Sox dominance in the early 1900s. Only rarely. When I'm drunk.
But if the Yankees managed to lose this year, with this lead, with the off season they had, combined with 2004, that would become as much of their history as the 39 pennants, and more so when looked at by those that weren't born a century ago.
However, I wouldn't worry about it. The yankees are headed home, need just one of two, they're in the drivers seat. Although, I'd win game 6 if I were them. Game 7 would put all the pressure on New York, though CC's arm could probably nullify all the pressure.
posted by justgary at 06:48 PM on October 23
The Yankees spend more than any other team this season and everyone feels it's just a matter of taking the field and getting to the post season and World Series, while the rest of the league gets trampled by them.
Nope, they must still play up to their capabilities. What that takes is up to each player. Maybe a key player chokes, maybe a key player goes into a slump, as Teixeira has been in lately. But when you've got talent top to bottom (which is what the linked article was about), you can cover slumps better. More talent gives you a better chance of winning. The Yankees have the most talent, they've got the best shot. Doesn't guarantee anything of course, or they wouldn't play the game.
The Orioles make a splash, adding the biggest free agent there was at that time, and finish 35 games back? Maybe the highest team payroll doesn't guarantee winning.
You're completely changing the topic. I never said that it did guarantee winning. I would disagree with that. What I disagreed with is your claiming that the free agents brought chemistry, and that has put the Yankees over the top. So I'm not sure what you're proving by referring to the Orioles payroll. Yes, you can spend money unwisely and lose. And you can have bad pitching and lose. But I'm not sure how Chemistry sunk their pitching.
I don't offer enough stats and justgary puffs out his chest and tells me not to bother.
Your response was this:
All athletes are so strong-minded, centered, and have such a handle on things that all they have to do is sign for lots of money and everything comes together! They get along with everyone, hit everything out of the park, become fantastic teammates, you name it. Money takes care of everything.
Can you not read the sarcastic, condescending tone? You ignored everything I said and came back with a couple of lines that completely had nothing to do with what I said. If you can't see what that type discussion is non-preductive, I don't know what to tell you.
Though I can understand your frustration. By definition its tough to back up the effect of chemistry, especially when you can't get into the players head, and you can't get into the yankees locker room, so your thoughts on their chemistry is a guess at best.
the views of about 5 individuals carry all the weight, and they pile on anyone else who dares disagree or offer a different viewpoint than any one of them.
I don't know where you get this dyams. This isn't a contest and we don't have teams. As rcade said, I think we've disagreed as much as any two members, and even though he's usually wrong I'd still invite him over to dinner if he didn't live 400 miles away (though I'm saving the expensive wine for right thinking folk).
because the Rays ARE essentially the same team as last year
The Rays played over their heads last year (I think run differential would show that, maybe not, don't quote me on it). I don't think they have the talent of the Red Sox or the Yankees. They had a rough season, and so I can see where chemistry might have been different. Which do you think would have helped more, better chemistry, or sabathia and tex?
Justgary tries to cut me off from my opinion
You really need to let the persecution complex rest. You can write whatever you like. I'm not cutting you off. Please don't act as if you were discussing in good faith from the paragraph I quoted. And don't end with a sarcastic "get back with me when..." if you can't take a sarcastic response without feeling attacked.
Most teams that are huge losers don't have any great chemistry, thus they're losers.
Most teams that are huge losers don't have talent, therefore they have bad team chemistry. The problem with the royals and pirates isn't team chemistry. They don't have the talent to compete, so they're big losers. They need talent. If there's a chemistry problem, you deal with that later, because talent is far more important.
You say you're finished with this dyams, and that's fine. If you feel you're being attacked, I'm sorry. Not my intention. We simply disagree completely. So I'll end my part with just a few comments and let it be:
When theo held his season ending conference about what went wrong with the Red Sox chemistry was never mentioned. If you asked the 22 teams that didn't make the playoffs what they need to be better next season, what do you think they would say? Pitching, or hitting, or fielding, or depth. Improving those areas is the quickest way to winning.
Maybe Sabathia is a great guy, and maybe he helped club chemistry. But he was also the same guy in cleveland, and milwaukee. His chemistry didn't push those teams to the world series. But now he's 1 game away with the yankees. Why? Because the yankees are a better team than his previous employers. Sabathia is 3 and 0 in the playoffs. He's been dominating. Sabathia mowing down the Angels in 2 games, one on short rest, is the difference between the Yankees being behind instead of ahead in the series. That is talent. That is not chemistry. They didn't come to the Yankees and suddenly play differently. They came to the Yankees and simply reproduced what they had done before, which was better than the players they replaced.
The 2008 yankees had flaws. The added the best pitcher available and he's pitched like he always has. They picked up the best hitter available and he led the league in home runs (not to mention how many runs has he saved at first base?). Just by being the players they've always been they made the Yankees immensely better. Hell, swisher has 29 home runs and 82 rbi himself. If Swisher played for the Red Sox he'd be second in that category. He's hitting 7th for the Yankees.
Simply overwhelming talent.
I'm not saying chemistry isn't important, though I've always believed that winning brought chemistry. And since we've brought actual players opinions in the mix, most I've read have agreed. But I don't think it's in the same neighborhood as talent. As a Yankee fan, I'm sure you remember the bronx zoo. Yankee players were fighting and constantly at each others throats, and they won. Because they were talented.
posted by justgary at 06:40 PM on October 23
I'd venture to guess the Yankees themselves would disagree. And, fluke or not, that was the longest error free streak in the history of the game. Pretty noteworthy. Unless you're a Red Sox fan, I suppose.
If you can find where I said it wasn't noteworthy I'd love to see it. Is the ability to read things that aren't there a Yankee talent? But you are correct, it was the longest error free streak in the history of the game. That's what it was. Nothing more. Though, I must admit, you assuming the support of the entire Yankee team is a pretty impressive trick.
But team chemistry doesn't matter.
That's not what I said. I said it wasn't the difference between the 2008 Yankees and this years Yankees.
You brought up Albert Belle to prove that, I'm guessing, team chemistry matters. It's telling that you have to bring up such an extreme player to try and prove your point (exactly who would Albert Belle be on the 2008 Yankees?).
The 99/00 Orioles could score runs, thanks mostly to Albert Belle. The problem was not chemistry (I know, you're not really into cold, hard statistics, but humor me). Their problem was pitching. The Yankees, who scored more runs than the Orioles, have a team ERA of 4.28. The Orioles had a team ERA of 4.77 in 99 and a whopping 5.37 in 2000.
Instead of discussing team chemistry on an Orioles team that wasn't nearly as talented as the 2009 Yankees, a better discussion would be just how bad they would have been without Albert Belle's contributions.
Again, that you're pointing to team chemistry as the reason the 2009 Yankees are better than the 2008 Yankees instead of adding 3 top free agents (ignoring Swisher) is a ridiculous statement. It's one step above a player thanking God for his home run, or giving credit to the ghost in old Yankee Stadium.
To point to team chemistry when you have Sabathia completely dominating the 3 games he's pitched, including one on short rest, to pin success on chemistry instead of the almost complete all-star lineup the Yankees send up to the plate is the type of nonsense that firejoemorgan use to lampoon during their heyday.
Yeah, right. Find me a manager or coach in any sport that believes that and get back to me.
When you actually comment on anything I've said or defend your position with anything more than a couple of lines of sarcastic rhetoric you get back to me. Otherwise, please don't bother.
posted by justgary at 07:44 PM on October 22
Pretty interesting.
Also interesting was Isiah claiming Magic hated Bird and that the whole 'best buddies' act is only for show.
posted by justgary at 01:55 PM on October 22
and believing paying a guy a huge contract will always mean production is way too simplistic thinking.
You're calling that view simplistic thinking, and yet I'm dealing with facts and statistics. Signing high performance athletes for huge contracts is pretty concrete. Your opinion is apparently coming from some magical method of not only getting into the yankee locker room, but into the heads of the players themselves.
Where in past years A-Rod was being bashed and criticized...
A-Rod is having a great post season. He's a great player, so maybe that was bound to happen. Or maybe he has so much talent around him now he feels less pressure.
I think chemistry is about #99 on a list of 100 attributes found on top clubs, but even if I'm wrong and you're right it seems like the yankees being your proof is pretty weak. Maybe if they had the same team as last year, and the club had problems, and this year they had the same team, but with a new manager. I still would disagree that chemistry is what changed, but I can better understand where you're coming from. But pointing to chemistry when you have basically the same team and same manager but with 3 new high priced free agents seems seems remarkably shortsighted.
He sits in the dugout with everyone else between starts, where in the past, guys like Roger Clemens, a huge talent, only wanted to be around when he pitched.
Kind of ironic. When the yankees signed damon all I heard was that he would shake up the club house. He'd bring a new, winning attitude to the yankee clubhouse. Then they signed clemens and all I heard was how he was an inspiration to the yankees and how he'd take the young pitchers under his wing and how much joba was going to learn from him.
So now Sabathia has changed the chemistry. That's the difference. Not that Sabathia is 3 and 0 with a 1.19 ERA in the playoffs. I know we're not going to change each others minds, but I fail to see how you can stand by that claim.
The yankees are hitting each other with pies because they're winning, not the reverse. And the yankees should beat the angels because they have more talent, not because their chemistry is better.
My point was that given MLB's financial structure, why wouldn't teams in New York, Boston and L.A. spend like they do?
Those teams are already spending more money than anyone but the yankees, and they're in the playoffs. Could the Red Sox spend more? I'm sure they could. Could the Yankees then spend even more? Probably. An all out salary war doesn't solve anything. And having 4 other teams join the yankees at the 200 million level only makes problems worse, not better.
posted by justgary at 02:57 AM on October 22
Also, I've found that men discussing the appearance of a woman on merit, whether it be positive or negative in tone, is a great way to alienate a majority of women from the conversation. Make what you want of that.
In college it always seemed the case that the uglier the guy the more critical he was of the opposite sex. It was strange to see such high standards coming from guys that were continuously alone on friday nights (obviously not a rule, just something I saw often). If you had asked them why, they would have said 'by choice'. I never quite understood the motives behind this, but I guess it had to do something with sour grapes.
posted by justgary at 12:23 AM on October 22
It seems we think that if a celebrity is going to risk it all it's going to be with someone that looks like a model. When we get an average looking person we question why and attack their appearance.
I'm guessing that a celebrity having an affair isn't that different than Joe Average. Convenience, power, etc. come into play much more than looks.
I don't think the affair is nearly as incriminating has his baseball analysis.
posted by justgary at 07:04 PM on October 21
It's kind of amusing that the topic of the article is completely being ignored while a small acknowledgment of the yankee payroll has garnered all the attention. And that's kind of sad, but understandable. The fact that the lineup is so ferocious up and down loses its steam when you look at the money being spent. It becomes, 'well, no kidding, so what'.
They did not reach the World Series from 1982 through 1995.
Did they have this kind of payroll adavantage during those years? From 95-99 they averaged about 10 million more the second highest paying team. So I don't find the comparison holds much water. I don't remember salaries being discusses much before 2000 or so.
It takes more than the advantage of a massive payroll.
It certainly helps. If I have 200,000 to invest and you have 100,000, I have an advantage. I could throw it all away. It doesn't guarantee anything if I invest foolishly. But if I invest wisely, I'm in the drivers seat.
The yankees have made dumb decisions in the past. You throw enough money at the problem, eventually you'll probably come up aces. Having twice the payroll of most teams is a huge advantage. Pointing to a lack of a championship points to the fact that you still have to spend the money wisely, it doesn't prove it isn't a huge advantage.
Whenever the Red Sox succeed (which happens as often as the arrival of Haley's Comet), this "buying a pennant" shit never comes up for some reason.
Then you've lived under a rock. Articles about the Sox having the highest payroll of any WS winner as well as them being the new 'yankees' have been everywhere. Perhaps you've been blinded by Haley's Comet the last decade.
I would say the Yankees just did a better job last year in free agency then they have previously this decade. Adding Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira in a year could be one of the best groups of free agents ever (and most expensive).
Where doing a good job is nabbing the top 3 free agents available. This wasn't rocket science.
Yeah, because the BoSox weren't interested at all in picking up Tex. I don't know for sure about CC and AJ, but I have to imagine they were in the mix for those two as well. Don't pretend Boston is some bastion of home-grown talent.
Yes, the Red Sox were in the Tex sweepstakes, until it reached a certain dollar value, at which point they bowed out. Exactly when do you think the Yankees would have bowed out? How about... never? The point is not that the Red Sox are not interested in free agents, or that any team isn't interested in free agents, but that the Yankees are spending much more than anyone else to get those free agents.
The red sox will continue to sign free agents. You can't win without them. And as soon as they sign their next big one (holliday? Though the yankees *gasp* are considered the frontrunners) we'll have comments about the sox being just like the yankees. And those comments will be wrong if you look at the big picture.
That would be because they spent a kings ransom on just 1 high priced free agent from Japan that hasn't actually proved his worth as of yet.
Up until this year, Dice-K hasn't been a bad investment. If you actually look at the amount of money spent instead of saying 'kings ransom', though I agree it's fun to say.
Cano. Joba. Phil Hughes. Melky, despite not being a stud, is clearly a great clubhouse presence, though I have a feeling he'll get dealt in the offseason.
As a Red Sox fan I can hope this is tomorrows yankees. Sadly, it won't be.
The Yankees of this season get along fantastically, something that has been missing in past seasons, and history shows you can't just bring in the highest-paid free agents and expect success without having guys who will get along together.
I'll disagree slightly. I'd say that team chemistry has almost nothing to do with the Yankees success (neither did a fluke non-error streak). I'd say that team chemistry looks great when teams win, and bad when teams lose. To take a team with a 200 million dollar payroll and point to chemistry as the difference maker is laughable. Do you think the yankees chemistry is better than the angels? Is that the difference?
Team chemistry doesn't hit home runs, it doesn't throw strike outs. If it makes you feel better to point to team chemistry as to the reason the Yankees are better this year than last, and not the three top tier free agents they bought during the off season, then fine, but you are in denial. 423 million spent in one off season is great for chemistry.
On topic, the whole 'who has more home grown talent' is a red herring, and not what the article referred to. It's about team salary, period. And when it comes to team salary, it's the yankees, and every one else. It is, as someone said, a matter of degrees. If the Sox were playing the angels they'd have roughly a 10 million dollar advantage. The Yankees have roughly a 90 million dollar advantage over the Angels. To put that into perspective, that's more than the team payroll of 18 of the 30 teams in the league.
That's a huge advantage, and as much as yankee fans try and spin the sox as the their little brother, the facts don't back that up. The sox are no where near the yankees, and neither are the other 28 teams.
A part of me almost wishes the yankees would have a run of championships just to put a spotlight on what a farce team payrolls have become. Barring that, I don't see any change coming. Yankee fans would have no problem if the payroll was 400 million (they just need team chemistry). The league is happy as long as the league is popular. And other teams fans seem to be content with the fact that sometimes the Yankees will fail, and that's awesome I guess.
And really, that's the only saving grace. I disagree with hincandenza that this is a crapshoot. It still helps to have the best team on the field. But one hot pitcher can stop any team, and the angels are one out away from having this series tied 2-2.
It will be interesting to see where the yankees go over the next couple of years. I have little doubt that the yankees checkbook had no limit this past season in order to guarantee a first year championship in the new stadium. Will the open checkbook continue? And what if the yankees don't win this year. Maybe 250 million is within reach. Yep, great for baseball.
posted by justgary at 06:55 PM on October 21
Matt Holliday.
Yeah, he's the one guy that always pops up, and on SoSH there's a thread right now pushing for it. And yes, his defense is bad, though he certainly had company this year. I just don't think switching Holliday for Bay next year, or this year, changes all that much. I still think they go out in the first round. Now, Bay at DH and Holliday in left would be different, but I don't see that happening. And I also wouldn't be surprised to see Bay go elsewhere.
Years ago the theory was to choke up on the bat when down in the count, and attempt to put the ball in play someplace. Has the game changed so much that this no longer works?
I think having to choke up means your bats too big. Yes, I think that's part of the past. Bats use to be bigger and heavier. Bats are much lighter today. Ty Cobb used a 42 oz bat, Mark McGwire 33 oz. You hear about choking up in little league ball because players aren't strong enough to control the bat. Major league players generally don't have that problem. It's the same with catching a ball with two hands. Another cliche that really has no place in the majors. One hand is fine.
I don't get that swinging for the fences was a problem. I think the lineup was simply filled with too many mediocre hitters, and the good ones went cold at the wrong time.
posted by justgary at 11:38 PM on October 14
but that the animators themselves, if they are representative of America, were probably overweight themselves.
And would probably give their right nut to be with simpson.
posted by justgary at 03:16 PM on October 13
It should've been obvious to management that Ortiz and Lowell weren't going to hit as well this year as the past and that Varitek was a bottom feeding catcher now. Maybe this is a reality check.
I'm sure they were well aware of the dangers, but you're ignoring contracts. It's going to be difficult to trade an aging DH that's breaking down and a 3rd baseman with a gimpy hip. Theo has said that 2010 will be the last go for this core of players. So I expect the team to look very similar next year, but vastly different in 2011.
Bay is on the decline
His OPS of .921 was his best since 2006, above his career average, and good for ninth in the league. His Home run and RBI totals were the best of his career (36, 119). He hasn't shown any decline. And even if you're correct, who are you going to replace him with that will do better?
The bats started to look lively in Game 3
Eh, they were still out hit 11-7. They made good use of their hits, but only impressive in relation to how bad they hit the first two games.
Again, that's how baseball is: the worst team in the league can beat the best team 3 of 5 or 4 of 7 every now and then; when they're two solid, 95-100 win teams, anyone can take it and all t takes is a couple of bad series from key players and you're toast.
That's all true, but I don't think that's the whole story here. I agree with yerfatma, this was a most unimpressive 95 win team. Being swept by the royals at the end of the season said a lot. And for what it's worth, Theo disagrees with you:
Was this randomness of a short series?
No, that sounds like a crutch. I think we got outplayed in this series. We didn't play our best baseball. We didn't play all that well, all things told, over these last three games. And they certainly did. They deserve it. They outplayed us fair and square and deserve to move on. You have to be a really good and play really well to win in the playoffs. We didn't play well in this series.
Are there things that concerned in this series that you will respond to, or would that be an overreaction?
Maybe some nuances, but nothing new. Only things that were reflected earlier in the season as well if you look at the larger sample as well. But, no, I think you can't make decisions based on any three games. I don't think anything that occurred in this series came completely out of the blue, either. There were times we struggled hitting on the road this series. This year, there were times we struggled hitting on the road. There were certain things that went down during this series that were foreshadowed during the regular season as well. That said, I think we were a good team capable of winning the World Series, and had we played better, we'd still be playing right now. Link
I saw the majority of Red Sox games this season, and I think it would be difficult for anyone that did not to see the same "foreshadowed" problems Theo saw. But I think they did the best they could to solve them (martinez).
posted by justgary at 10:08 AM on October 13
Even though other teams have also adopted this strategy against Boston, I really don't see any change coming as long as the present management and coaching staff is in place.
Hmm, I'll disagree Howard. I love the present management and coaching staff. I agree with their strategy. I mean, those theories have been good for 2 WS rings over the past 6 years, and the team was one game away from the WS last year. Those results are hard to argue with.
But you have to have the players to make it work. I just don't think the current roster has those players.
posted by justgary at 04:35 PM on October 12
there was none of the fire that won in the playoffs before.
Come on. This has nothing to do with fire, or intensity, or anything else other than lack of hitting. As you said Papelbon has been iffy all season. Ortiz isn't Ortiz... the reason this red sox team isn't as good as 2004, 2007 are pretty clear. They've sucked on the road all season, this was more of the same.
I think they beat the Yankees.
Yeah, the angels are very good. I think the Yankees should be favored, but I wouldn't be shocked at all if the angels pulled it out.
posted by justgary at 03:41 PM on October 12
The Red Sox are simply an average to below average team on the road. Losing the first two away gave them no room for error, and so what happened today isn't just a blip on the radar, it's the end. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Sox had managed to win today. I wouldn't have been shocked to see the Angels start to clinch, but we'll never know.
The Red Sox are a flawed team. Ortiz, Tek, Lowell, short stop, all question marks. They no longer have the big 1- 2 of Ortiz in his prime and Manny to cover the flaws. The pitching, while decent, wasn't good enough to cover the flaws either.
In the off season the red sox decided to stay out of signing big free agents while the Yankees spent 3 billion dollars on free agents (that might be hyperbole, but not by much). It didn't work out. It'll be interesting to see the response from the front office.
Interesting take on the walk to Hunter in the ninth.
posted by justgary at 02:43 AM on October 12
America's Team was not my comparison.
Well, I probably shouldn't have included that term. The Red Sox Nation as a moral booster was my real comparison.
that aside, I had no idea my remark in my first post would cause such a debate.
I didn't take it the wrong way. I just think it's an interesting topic. It actually doesn't rub me the wrong way simply because I know you really can't measure it. The sox have a lot of intelligent fans, a lot of not so intelligent fans. Most fan bases are probably similar.
posted by justgary at 02:35 AM on October 12
Boston has Red Sox Nation, right? Does that mean there is some magical way to measure whether it is in fact a nation, or is it just a morale boost?
I don't think we're talking about equivalent terms here. America's team signified that the Cowboys were so popular, so many people were Cowboy fans, that they were in fact America's Team. I can see that being irritating, but many cowboy players (when the term was really popular) hated the name.
Red Sox Nation is used to refer to all Red Sox fans as a group. Red Sox Nation. I've never taken it, and I don't think it has ever meant to mean, we have a Nation of Red Sox fans. I can see where hearing the name over and over again can be irritating, but that's the media. Other teams have put nation in back of their names, (dodgernation, cubnation, cardinalnation) but the media doesn't use it. So when the Red Sox lose, as they just did, they'll say Red Sox Nation was disappointed. Long story short, I don't see Red Sox Nation as a moral boost, or a complement, or even unique.
That's not the same as if the cardinal fans were called the 'best fans in the world' every time cardinal highlights were shown. One is referring to a fan base, the other is calling the fan base the best fans in the world. I find that quite different.
Then again, the St. Louis title isn't something that is only claimed by fans. Players use the phrase regularly. So do coaches, announcers and tv/radio analysts, etc...
And it might be true. I have no problem if cardinal fans identify with it. But as you said, there's no real statistic for this. That's really my point. It can only be opinion, especially if we're going to throw out the few statistics we do have (ex. home attendance).
(as far as players, come on, players on other teams are constantly saying they play in front of the 'best' fans. I've heard many players say that nothing compares to playing home games at fenway, same for the yankees, and I'm sure other teams as well.)
posted by justgary at 04:19 PM on October 11
Today in the Sox/Angels game Napoli was hitting when the pitch hit off the knob of his bat. The catcher immediately pointed to the knob of the bat, and Napoli started to simply get ready for the next pitch when you could see something click in his head and he pointed to his forearm. The pitch came no where near his forearm. The umpire missed the sound of the ball hitting wood (unlike the catcher) and missed that Napoli gave away that the ball didn't hit him.
A replay would have corrected the call. It sucks when that happens to your team. And still, I'm completely against almost any change.
I do think that bad umps should be fired. Does that happen? Is the union too strong? Bucknor missed two easy calls in the first game of the series. He's been voted twice as worst umpire by the players. Shouldn't they know? Why is he still umpiring? And why in the playoffs?
I think you might see additions to the home run replays, fair or foul, catch or no catch maybe, but I'm against much more, especially balls and strikes. I guess I simply believe that the better team wins 99.99 percent of the time. If it costs my team believe me, I'll complain, and I'll curse the umpire, but I won't be asking for replay.
That wouldn't work. The 9th inning is no more important to the game than the 1st. A game can be won or lost in any inning.
posted by justgary at 03:35 PM on October 11
I think the "best fans in baseball" claim is the baseball version of "America's Team." That boast has endured for three decades mostly as a taunt by fans of other teams. Hubris has staying power.
I always find the 'best fans in baseball' claims dubious at best. How in the hell do you measure it? Attendance? Baseball intelligence? Was there a test I missed?
The Holliday ovation was nice, but not unusual. In 2005 second baseman Tony Graffanino let a ball go between his legs that led to a red sox playoff loss and got a standing ovation the next game. What's lost in the whole Buckner saga with all the media negativity is that he received a rousing ovation in the city hall celebration a few days after the 1986 WS loss, on opening day in 1987 he received a standing ovation from the fans, and in 1990 when he returned as an opposing player he received another standing ovation.
I think the Cardinals fans, who are good fans, are typically chosen over Red Sox, or Yankee, or even Cub fans because they're seen as nicer, politer, less obnoxious than other rabid fan bases. If that makes them 'better' fans, I don't know. But it seems to me that the best fans are the small core that follow the pirates or royals religiously. That's loyalty. It's easy to follow the cardinals, red sox, or yankees.
As far as the series, I was rooting for the cardinals because looking ahead I thought they might have the pitching to beat the yankees if both made it. Looks like their hitting would have let them down. At this point, a red sox / cardinals world series might have been the lowest scoring in history.
posted by justgary at 09:55 AM on October 11
As a Twins fan, that blown call on Mauer's double was hard to take. It hit the fielder's glove for God's sake! not like we're talking about a ball an inch outside the strike zone.
It's bad for the twins, and bad for baseball. If the correct call is made there's a good chance the series is headed to minn tied 1 game apiece. What a great baseball story that would be? Instead, it cheapens the yankee win and puts the twins on life support.
posted by justgary at 04:17 PM on October 10
Umps' foul play spoiling playoffs
posted by justgary at 11:38 AM on October 10
I realize this isn't an isolated incident with regards to MLB, but an umpire this inconsistent can really impact the outcome of innings (and games).
So can a fair ball called foul.
The umpiring has been terrible all around this year (in the playoffs).
posted by justgary at 11:20 AM on October 10
The more details that come out the worse it makes the phillies look.
In these type situations I've seen fans rack up. Signed Jersey, a glove, several signed baseballs, a picture with the player, and game tickets. They gave this girl cotton candy, a soda, and one ball, and she never met Howard. And all this without an adult around.
And to make it worse if Howard wanted the ball he certainly hasn't show any sign of it. Bizarre.
posted by justgary at 11:20 PM on October 09
17 Congressmen Vote Against Yankees Resolution
"Being from New York, I have always considered myself to be a winner," King told The Hill. "So it is very difficult for me to understand the 'begrudgery' and thought process of those who come from unimportant cities and states."
I know that's suppose to be funny, and I've loved NYC every time I've visited, but that quote isn't surprising. In the piece linked yesterday about how much NY needed this WS win because of their suffering, it wasn't good enough to say that they've suffered like most of the U.S.
No, New York had to suffer MORE than the rest of the U.S. It gets tedious.
Wait, no, that's not quite right. I mean the Yankees are at least IN the World Series every year. Oh, no, that's not right either.
The faults with your reasoning are so blatantly obvious and have been discussed and linked to so many times here that I have trouble believing you're serious.