And by that, I mean, Jason Giambi, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada having aches and pains early on isn't the worst thing. It could be all the pitchers, whether they be beleaguered (Andy Pettitte), ancient (Mike Mussina) or youthful (the kids).
The offense is an old, albeit powerful, machine. There will be some missed time and some slumps. That's not such a worry at the moment. And remember, the hitting hasn't lost in the playoffs the past 4-5 years nearly as often as a breakdown in the pitching (and by extension, the managing of said pitching). Joe Girardi hasn't had too many tests yet (this noteworthy one the exception), but he seems off to a good start. Having been sick himself recently, he's keeping a level head.
That's about all you can do in April if your team isn't winless (sorry, Tigers).
Yeah, it's an armchair, vague analysis. That's all my brain can muster at the moment.
That would be me, not the Yankees or anything about them. Sure, the hitting isn't great, but the team hasn't fallen on its face out of the gate for the first time in a few years.
My Internet at home is a continuing problem, but basically, I'm just working about a million hours right now and don't have the energy (or the willpower, you decide) to keep up as I should be. I'll try harder.
I didn't see any of the Oscar movies (or many new movies at all this year), but I did see some of the outfits.
And I have to say: Whoever decided to invite Heidi Klum is a genius.
Although Katherine Heigl isn't shabby. Maybe it's something with those German (or German-sounding) names.
So what?
He's not always been the worst like he was in 2007, so soon the Yankees may have to find him a new position or suffer because of it.
But as important as defense is for shortstops, Jeter is perennially one of the top all-around shortstops. Why? Offensive production.
He steals you some bags, he's a captain (for the tiny intangible aspect), and he's got a 122 OPS+. That's the number to examine.
That's better than HOFers Tony Lazzeri, Joe Cronin and Lou Boudreau (the latter two shortstops), plus should-be HOFer Barry Larkin. It's better than Dale Murphy and Dave Parker, Harold Baines, Chili Davis, Gil Hodges, Paul O'Neill, Andre Dawson, Darrell Evans, Cliff Floyd, Don Baylor, Cecil Fielder, Pat Burrell, Andres Galarraga, Bob Meusel, Carlos Beltran and Pete Rose, to name a few.
All but Rose were considered power hitters, some top-10 players (and MVPs) during their best years. Granted, none of the non-HOFers played short, but how many of those guys are remembered as much for their defense as their way with the stick? Dawson. That's it.
All I'm saying is, rip Jeter for his fielding, but don't pretend like he's getting paid (or played) on the basis of it. He could turn into Ozzie Smith with the glove, but if he hit like Ozzie, people would do backflips. And not in the jovial, Ozzie-loves-baseball sort of way.
When I defended Andy Pettitte back when (or, at least, said it's water under the bridge), I made clear to state that it was pending no further revelations.
The news that he took HGH in 2004 as well is understandable from a human perspective. He was injured (again) and probably scared. Not scared like in a war zone, but still.
That sympathy is not pardon, however.
I don't know what should be done, discipline-wise. Obviously, the fact remains that given the arbitrary and incomplete nature of the Mitchell Report, to throw the book at the few is to incorrectly exonerate all those players whose teams didn't have trainers who caved in to Mitchell's demands/threats.
My standard has always been: Break a rule on baseball's books, a hard-and-fast rule, and you're out of the Hall, etc. Pete Rose broke the gambling rule, the oldest and clearest one, knowing the consequences. He's out. Same with anyone admitting to illegal substance use or getting caught in a test (Gary Sheffield up through Barry Bonds). Pettitte's in that boat, not that he was a sure bet.
The loophole in my theory? Mark McGwire is off the hook through baseball's own errors. He never tested positive for anything (putting aside a lack of tests), and he's only admitted to andro, a substance then legal by FDA standards. All baseball would have had to do, however, is list it on its banned substances list, as the NFL and Olympics had done, and it would have been clear. As awful as it sounds, McGwire was the only player smart enough to use andro while he could.
As a person, I'm not happy with Pettitte. As a fan, though, I'll be just as unhappy if he goes and has a terrible 2008 because of this, something he brought onto himself.
As for Clemens, Brian McNamee is a creep and a liar. Sure, Clemens probably did stuff. But McNamee is an awful human being in a lot of unrelated ways, and if it's Clemens' word against McNamee's, I can't really trust either.
The two best national games this year involved the New York Giants and the New England Patriots.
Not to knock the fine efforts by other squads, particularly the Colts in the regular season and the Chargers in the playoffs, but the only matchups of equals were in Week 17 and the Super Bowl. Yes, I said equals.
The Giants are overachievers. But they aren't a fluke. They play solid ball, with talented recievers (a legit #1, solid #2 and contributors throughout), a passable running game, a very good line. On defense, they have the best front line football has seen in years, and that helps compensate for less-than-awesomeness elsewhere. But this team stopped beating itself three months ago, and Eli Manning joined them after the Minnesota four-INT disaster.
They make teams expend energy, make them execute -- not just with big plays or with a drive or two, but constantly, over dozens of plays. They're the rare team that wants the pressure of having its defense tested time and again, of leading the fourth-quarter drive.
Make no mistake: If these teams play 10 times, the Pats win eight, maybe nine. But the Giants were a worthy foe, a worthy champion, and one that simply seemed to be calm through the playoffs. It's a rare balance to enjoy being there but still having the ambition to do more. The Giants found that, and hopefully, they persuaded many of their fans before the game ended tonight.
I've never been a Giants optimist (my default pick is 7-9 and has been for a decade and a half), but I believed in this team every round. Why? I don't know. It certainly wasn't my exhaustive football knowledge. The only thing I did know was that I was seeing a team execute, play to its potential. Is that always enough? No. But it is always enough to have faith in your team doing its absolute best. Luckily for me, that meant a Super Bowl title.
The Patriots have a tough time ahead. The only, and miserably small, consolation? They got beat. They didn't lose this. I've no joy at that, merely at the win. But there's plenty more joy at rejoicing a championship than celebrating someone's fall.
The biggest win in Giants history. And there's been plenty of them. The 1986 Giants had dominance. The 1990 team had the thrills of last-second wins and the human interest of backup Jeff Hostetler leading the charge. The 2000 team was just fun to watch until Jason Sehorn helped lead a dive job. Or rather, I pretend they threw it because it's less painful than knowing they lost by 27.
But I digress. This has been the most fun Giants team, in my opinion, I've ever watched, and I thought that before tonight. Tonight just makes the memories entirely happy.
I've loved the unity this Giants team has shown -- the offense and defense haven't sniped at each other as has been so common in the post-Parcells era (in other words, it wasn't just Michael Strahan or Tiki Barber to blame).
Eli Manning hasn't played like the 25th-ranked starting quarterback. Not only has he "managed" the game, he's outperformed the league's third- and fourth-best quarterbacks in Romo and Favre, who were actually ranked fifth and sixth.
Can they beat the Pats? Theoretically. They do match up well, nearly beat them once, and have a healthier defensive backfield. But let's be honest -- no one picking against the Patriots (not the spread, but the win/loss) has any rational reasoning involved. It's a hunch that their time is up, nothing more.
It's been one hell of a season for the Giants, one perhaps not fully appreciated. So, I'm just going to enjoy the game, be glad Jason Sehorn isn't around to let wide receivers run by him, and see what happens.
As for Spygate, the continuance? It's too early to tell. The conspiracy theorists wonder why Roger Goodell destroyed the tapes; maybe, they say, the Patriots have a treasure-trove of other tapes.
Just as likely, but less mentioned, I'd imagine, is that many other teams have such tapes, but the NFL has always turned a blind eye or dealt with it internally. Eric Mangini, et al, upset this arrangement.
Gregg Easterbrook, as usual, is way ahead of the curve. In September, he practically said Bill Belichick would be out of football by this time. He's more restrained now, correctly pointing out that we know nothing for sure. But, he lapses in a description of the Rams in the red zone during the Super Bowl in question:
"In that game, St. Louis was held to a field goal in the first half. The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming."
Sure, it's easy to write that now. But was anyone saying at the time, man, it's like New England knows what plays are coming? And not just in the colloquial sense of a team guessing right or having a great game plan, but actually meaning, wow, it looks like the Pats cheated, they're so on top of these plays.
Of course not.
The larger issue in my mind is the credibility of the witnesses we're seeing in sports. Maybe athletes/teams should fight for all these issues to be handled in courtrooms, not the sporting kangaroo courts. Because I've a feeling nearly all such cases would be tossed for lack of evidence. And the few that survive would do so, like, for instance, mob convictions, because the low-life scum who turned rat for the feds were backed up by real evidence (documents, signatures, recordings, etc.), not rumors, hearsay and ex-senators with direct conflicts of interest.
Thrilled that the Yankees listened to people such as myself (and much more influential folks), even if it was months after the fact.
No, he's not Alex Rodriguez's replacement. But that just makes it more of a no-brainer. Less pressure, less money, less risk. For a guy, as NoMaas points out, with a 116 OPS+. You don't get those guys for nothing very often.
That's a higher mark than Miguel Tejada, to name one, and right there with Carlos Beltran. Compare contracts.
Even if in May, we're screaming, get Ensberg the hell out of here, it was still worth it.
My thought for much of this time was that the Yankees and Red Sox were secretly hoping the Mets would swoop in with some absurd offer and take the pressure off of each team.
From what I'm hearing (not knowing a great deal about the Mets' prospects), they may have better matched the Twins' desires, but still aren't getting swindled.
Neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox could afford to let the other get Santana, from a competitive standpoint. The Yankees, obviously, are more desperate for pitching, but the Sox couldn't take that kind of PR and fanbase hit, either, even if they may be in better, younger shape. But losing out on Santana to a third party, especially one in another league, must be bringing a sigh of relief.
It provides cover -- saying, hey, we didn't cave in or let the other guy get him -- and allows each to rely on the contingent of fans who believe that Santana (or really, any pitcher) isn't worth that long of a contract for that much money, and that as great as Johan is, each team would have dreaded the last 2-3 years of the deal.
Now, if the Mets deal falls through, I think the previous pressure is doubled. The Twins can't afford not to move him, especially because they don't seem to believe they have a good enough team to win next year. (By win, I mean make the playoffs)
Would having Santana be great? Yes. Is the price too high? There's a damn good argument for that. Will the Mets win the Series with or without him? I'd be stunned.
There's a lot of worries about the Yankees' pitching staff (all legitimate worries) and how certain members of the offense are going to perform. Plus, there's the question of how Joe Girardi will handle being in charge, and whether Brian Cashman IS in charge.
But, just imagine if Don Mattingly had been hired to manage the club, then had his family issues?
I favored Girardi over Mattingly (and Pinella over Torre/Mattingly the year before), so it's not a big deal to me. And, of course, Mattingly is probably doing the right thing, even if we don't know the details. But it's a hell of a lot easier to find a hitting coach (especially when the Dodgers have an in-house candidate with experience at the position) than it is to find a manager -- regardless of market size.
The bigger question: How will this affect Joe Torre? It's not for us to worry about -- at least not anymore.
I didn't know about the <a
href="http://www.afternoonbaseball.com/2008/01/midweek-links.html">Yankees'
fight song</a>. But there's a good reason. Does the crowd chant it (or
sing it) during the game? If not, I can't be responsible for not
knowing it. Granted, if I heard it, I might recognize it. But I
wouldn't know about the words, etc.
Fight songs are fine, actually. But they aren't about the fans, even
though they're sold as such and believed to be about them. They're a
cheap, easy way for teams (or causes, etc.) to assimilate support.
That's not always a bad thing -- in the case of a sports team, it's a
superficial group thought. But make no mistake, if the crowd is
singing fight songs and chanting overly simple slogans, they've less
time to boo or question the home team's direction.
1. Possibly the best sports blog named after the best sporting moment ever, Kissing Suzy Kolber, is scoring way more than Joe Namath lately.
Between ripping the looks-like-a-jerk, acts-like-a-jerk Phil Rivers and showing who else besides Tom Brady isn't very special, it's a must-read. Plus, we haven't even gotten to the Patriots as told by a Bostonite (best line, referring to Wes Welker: "I always wanted Troy Brown to not be black, and now he isn't!")
By the way, Rivers showed a lot of class taunting the Colts fan after the game was decided. Why get into it with fans? Because he's already lost the taunting game against actual players?
2. The Yankees have a fight song, apparently. A long-standing one, too.
The fight song thing I've never gotten. Maybe it's because I went to a college that didn't have football. To me, fight songs should have stayed in the Civil War.Shooting unreliable weapons at close range and knowing you'll have to eventually foolishly charge forward with a pointy metal thing as your best weapon demands some real fight songing. And probably a good dose of whisky.
3. Out of morbid curiosity, I watched the first 10 minutes of the new "Terminator" show. All I knew going in was that there was a really hot, too young chick (who I correctly assumed to be the inexplicable ally) and a Linda Hamilton lookalike, only flightier. Also, the preview tagline was, "Only a mother's love for her son can save the future," which made me think the future was pretty much screwed. And also make me think of Oedipus.
Well, turns out there's even more B-list fun.
Dean Winters of "Rescue Me" and the first season of "SVU" was there. Poor guy's got lines like, "You must think I'm a jackass," and "I came here for HELP! Not for this!"
Then, there's a well-dressed black guy, who of course is from the FBI and spouts lines like, "She's a grade-A whackamole!" and "That's not my patter. I'm here because my boss, the United States of America..."
Just wow. To quote a wise person, Fox is great at making intriguing action plots with terrible dialogue and acting. Plus, as the link to the left notes, what mother of a teenage boy wears an F-me skirt like that? "Hilariously inappropriate" is correct.
Despite this, Variety enjoyed it, as the first link details, and so did Newsday. Maybe I should have had a longer attention span?
Labels: Midweeklinks
Yeah, I'm not very good with this updating thing. Long hours at work, the main culprit.
Apologies. Apologies all around.
