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.
The steroids business affects a lot of records, among the most notable being Barry Bonds' season and career home-run makers and Roger Clemens' seven Cy Youngs. It should also bring into question Cal Ripken's streak, but no one has the temerity (nor proof, but that hasn't stopped anyone before).
ESPN.com did something similar a few years back, but let's have at it. At first glance, it's tempting to give all the records back to Babe Ruth. The guy whored around, ate and drank to excess, smoked and didn't work out for a lot of his career. And he also hit relative to his peers like no one ever has (or likely ever will).
But he played before integration. So let's throw out everything before 1947, when Jackie Robinson came into the game. Let's toss out everything after 1985, as Jose Canseco became a full-time player in 1986.
Greenies, or amphetamines, are considered bad now. So let's toss out all the years players admitted using them, going back at least to the early 1970s and Willie Mays and what was then called "red juice." Let's say 1970.
We're left with 1947-1969. Except, wait. Players brought them back after World War II.
That's 1946. So, eliminate every year since then.
That's every year.
So, we need to make choices. Are "greenies" OK because they keep a guy in the lineup, not boosting his muscle? Or isn't that cheating, since it eliminates weeding out of the weak and unconditioned?
If steroids and greenies are both bad (MLB considers them so, since you can get hefty suspensions, though of different levels, for use of either), then there's never been an era of the game in which there's been no cheating AND no racial exclusion.
There is no saintly era of baseball, no "clean" era. Hell, even Bobby Thompson's cheat-earned "Shot Heard Round The World" has been exposed -- though that's more gamesmanship than cheating. So we'd better decide in a hurry what the degrees of wrongness are -- if everything is equally wrong, nothing's wrong. Then, Bonds and the rest are simply the guys who saw through the mirage best, and the clean players, whoever they are, are simply holier-than-thou, fools or masochists.
This'll break the hearts of the fans, I know. It's not a pleasant thought, and it actually can be avoided. We can watch the game without these issues coming up. But baseball's always been -- partly in fact, wholly in theory -- a game that transcends time. With cheating or prejudice always present, if we truly acknowledge that, it destroys much of the debate, the banter that makes baseball a conversation, not just an activity. The "who's best" debates lose much of their relevancy, because there was never an even playing field. The technology of drugs and substances tilts in favor of the most recent players.
Baseball becomes then like the NFL, or NBA or NHL. Yes, you can debate the great players of different eras, but only to a point. Then, technology, conditions, size differences and rule changes leave any true definition of the greatest to speculation. In baseball, we at least hold the hope that any player from any era would be as great somewhere else in time.
Maybe that's what we'll lose from the steroids era. Comparisons will be simply from the time the latest drug was introduced, or the latest scandal, and what happened to the numbers vis a vis those events. Yes, it'll be interesting in its own perverse way, but it'll be a sport for the cynic. No longer the dreamer.
Labels: Baseball
And they know how to squeeze every area -- like by doubling the price of parking near Yankee Stadium.
I come in from the north, park at a Metro-North and take the train to the subway to the game, but it's time-consuming and not practical for many. Plus, with the reduction in seats, fewer upper-deck seats and the likely price increase (though maybe not as much as other teams with new digs), the "common" fan is going to be squeezed.
This may be a bad thing. It probably is, in certain ways. But look at the attendance. For decades, those diehards weren't filling up the seats by themselves. For most of the 1990s, that was the case. It was the case, to cherry-pick, when Roger Maris hit his 61st home run. The Yankees were a draw, but not like Broadway, for instance. There, tickets are going to sell and people are going to be disappointed. Therefore, you'll be charged more (and you'll pay more) because you're in a fight for tickets.
The Yankees, until the last several years, were most times a draw, but one in which a ticket was always available. Other activities could take precedence because, hey, I can go to a game anytime. That's no longer the case. San Francisco proved this when they cut capacity on Pac Bell (or whatever it's called now). Sure, the team was good, but it suddenly became much more difficult to get a ticket. The prestige value went up, and so did interest. Yeah, there were undoubtedly many status-seekers who weren't real fans, but it's better than perennial contenders such as Oakland and Minnesota regularly playing important games in half-filled caverns. While those stadiums surely have the diehards (in part because the facilities are terrible), all the empty seats actually imply the fanbase doesn't care, and isn't as worthy of a team as others.
So, let's say there's a loss of fan camaraderie from losing some diehards (an effect that has already happened, from many anecdotal accounts). The net increase in bodies, whether they be bandwagoners or true fans, may be enough to offset any change in demographics.
It's certainly good enough financially for the Yankees, and they are, for better or worse, a team of celebrities. Maybe having an audience of them is the next logical step.
Are interesting. He issues most of these denials through statements, but says he'll go talk to Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes." His case is well-documented, but if one domino falls (the one real witness), the whole theory does.
Yet, who's been proven innocent from among the Mitchell Report dossier? Most of the suspect cases have actually turned out to be correct. What would the odds be that the case that seems most open-and-shut (outside of Barry Bonds) turned out to be false?
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. But man, the fuel that would give to the Red Sox conspiracy theories.
Many of these names were not surprises, nor were they new. Sen. George Mitchell's investigation truly uncovered many fewer than the dozens claimed.
Further, in coercing only two trainers (one each from the two New York clubs) to flip, it creates a one-sided view that makes it seem as if but a few places were hotbeds of corruption and cheating. Boston, of course, is not one of these.
Not one current Red Sox player. Few recent ex-Sox. Yet, a plethora of Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays (or, at least, Glaus) and Angels. The biggest rivals of said Red Sox. As NoMaas says:
Any player who cheated in an effort to improve his performance should own up to his actions. However, this report suffers from a lack of credibility in its "sources" and clearly displays a major conflict of interest.
Look, I don't think there's a conspiracy. But Mitchell as the centerpiece creates the perception of one. And, quite frankly, the report would be different if ANY other team had had its clubhouse guys rat on players. The Yanks and Mets, and a few others, are catching heat all 30 teams deserve.
Further, Deadspin is shocked at the flimsy results of two years (flimsy in that no grand jury would ever give the go-ahead to try these "cases"):
We can say with 100 percent certainty that we are no closer to the truth about steroids in Major League Baseball over the last 20 years than we were this morning.
Are there lessons to draw? Certainly. Testing needs to become independent, if only to prevent these conflicts of interest (Mitchell) and complicity (as Mitchell pointed out, every group possible falling over themselves to bury the controversy for decades).
If this embarrasses enough people, perhaps it will dissuade a few. Perhaps it will make a push for more testing, bigger penalties, etc.
These would be good things. Let's not forget: the Mitchell Report had to happen. If not, baseball would just be hiding from the truth, covering up crimes yet again.
This report, though, does carry the danger of destroying the reputations of many based on some of the least-trustworthy people ever: clubhouse lackeys. Disgruntled ones, at that.
It's like the Duke lacrosse case. Who do you trust: Criminal, spoiled, arrogant frat-boy lacrosse players, strippers or a foreign cab driver? It was like a who's who of disreputable sources. Well, a similar lot is what the Mitchell Report had to draw upon.
Maybe the best thing that can come from the Mitchell Report is that there never needs to be one like it again.
As for Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, there's no post-2002 evidence, making much of it pointless. And the "evidence" is, again, flimsy. Not that they're innocent; I don't think they are. And while they certainly should be penalized in popularity, a blanket "No Hall of Fame" for this bunch is unwise. It makes no distinction between hearsay and a positive test, an admission and a he-said-he-said. Lastly, it makes no consideration for baseball's complete willingness to, by turning a blind eye in its rules and enforcement, silently endorse such practices.
Labels: Baseball
EDIT: Mike mentions in the comments that he believes the report little to no value. A valid point, though I'm not fully on board. However, as I've just recently read the report does not address amphetamine use, I'm far less convinced of the report's effectiveness. "Greenies" are just as unsportsmanlike, probably a bigger problem and seem to be considered morally OK by a large segment of players who would disdain steroids. To not address that is to miss half the picture.
It's inconclusive, hampered by lack of cooperation and tainted by its author being a member of the Red Sox board of directors.
Yet, it will shed some light upon the dark era of baseball of rampant steroid use without ramifications.
60-80 names is no joke. Although if there's several Yankees and no Red Sox on the list, be prepared for a lot of (possibly legitimate) conspiracy talk. On the other hand, if, say, a David Ortiz (or a player of his caliber and/or popularity) ends up on the list, it'll be devastating and illuminating.
Here's the thing: Jason Giambi is no hero. But, outside of the one anonymous player who did talk, he's the only one who was willing to talk with Mitchell. He was threatened, yes, but he could have called Selig's bluff and had the full support of the union in an appeal, one that likely would have been at least partly successful.
Giambi will still be a deceitful cheater, but he'll be better than every other name on that report.
Labels: Baseball
Alan Trammell, SS, Detroit (1977-1996).
This year: No.
Deserving: Well, he's definitely underrated.
Will writers think he's deserving?: He had big numbers for pre-Cal Ripken shortstops. But even Derek Jeter is a slugger by comparison.
Stay on ballot: Yes.
Veteran's Committee: Unlikely.
Alan Trammell spent 20 years with one club. He was the shortstop, the most glamorous fielding position, but also was a solid hitter. He should have won the 1987 MVP, hit .300 seven times, had 185 home runs, 236 stolen bases, walked as much as he struck out and had 1,200+ runs and 1,000 RBIs. In the awards department, he did garner three Silver Sluggers and four Gold Gloves before Ripken entered his prime, was a six-time All-Star and won 1984 WS MVP.
Here's the thing: His .285/.352/.415 line is good, but not incredible. And while he's a shortstop, and some accommodation should be made for that, letting things slide solely because of position is how Bill Mazeroski got induction (and Phil Rizzuto, though it's the Hall's fault for not including overall contributions). But, on second look, he's fairly similar to shortstop inductees Joe Sewell, Lou Bordreau, Robin Yount and Cal Ripken (112 OPS+ to Trammell's 110) and far above Ozzie Smith, Rizzuto, Pee Wee Reese and Luis Aparicio.
His fielding versus the league, from a couple basic (if outdated) stats, are excellent: .977 to .967 fielding pct., 4.47 to 4.09 range factor. He remained league average or better until late in his career.
Trammell came up in an American League that was relatively starved for shortstops. Before Ripken (and at the end of Trammell's career, the wave of excellence that now exists), you had no-hit, all-field Mark Belanger winding down, Rick Burleson and a few others. Trammell was above that group for several years and at a young age.
Let's put it this way: Is Barry Larkin a Hall of Famer? Larkin was a better hitter, though not by a landslide, and in my opinion, a slightly lesser fielder. If Larkin's a Hall of Famer, so should be Trammell, who is, with Ozzie Smith and Larkin, the definition of how a shortstop of average size should play the game.
And so, a little bit with sentiment rather than data, say yes to Alan Trammell.
All my talk of re-signing Luis Vizcaino looks to be dead, from a number of places.
He was overworked in April, was terrible until the team hit bottom, and then he, Melky Cabrera and Mariano Rivera helped rescue the season. But he wasn't so great after that, either, and again looked worn out.
Basically, he was a league-average pitcher (104 ERA+) after three very good years with three teams. But that league average came in these bizarre splits:
First 54 games: 2-1, 27 G, 28.2 IP, 27 H, 24 BB, 16 K, 6.91 ERA, .255/.388/.453
Next 54 games: 6-1, 28 G, 26.2 IP, 16 H, 9 BB, 25 K, 1.01 ERA, .168/.238/.232
Last 54 games: 0-0, 22 G, 20 IP, 23 H, 11 BB, 21 K, 4.95 ERA, .288/.372/.475
It's even worse if you count Viz's true good stretch:
Games 55-133: 6-1, 41 G, 38.2 IP, 24 H, 15 BB, 36 K, 1.16 ERA
Games 1-54, 134-162: 2-1, 36 G, 36.2 IP, 42 H, 28 BB, 26 K, 7.61 ERA
When he got wild, he also gave up hits and didn't strike out batters. Basically, he was either really good in all three departments or he was awful in all three. While that one half of the season was glittery and spectacular, the differences are disturbing.
He wasn't particularly overworked in the long run, either, with roughly the same number of appearances and innings as he's logged throughout the decade. So what's the problem? Who knows. While I still think he's someone worth keeping, I can see why, along with any potential arm problems, the Yankees are wary.
What's scary, though, is that people inside the organization still like Sean Henn.
Andy Pettitte taking arbitration is no light step, even as the wire report plays it up as a formality.
As this blog has mentioned at least once, the Yankees were foolish to trust Roger Clemens to retire after 2003, and they did not offer arbitration. Of course, Clemens never filed retirement papers, signed with Houston, and quite possibly cost the Yankees a championship by stealing Pettitte away as well.
So kudos to the Yankees for being respectful, giving Andy and his family time to decide, but also covering their asses.
$16 million may be a little much for even a 15-9, 4.05 ERA guy, but he and his innings are probably worth it. He's for sure more valuable at a one-year deal than are all these journeymen at $10-12 million.
Is a dicey proposition. I have to say I'm not opposed to an Ian Kennedy-Melky Cabrera deal (with other parts, I imagine), espoused by a co-worker and NoMaas.
But as that site shows in an interview with a Minneapolis newspaper columnist, the Twins would love to pit teams against each other for the only good and relatively young pitcher on the market.
His size bothers me, with all the nasty breaking stuff he throws. Could we be repeating the Mike Mussina deal (one or two great years, but mostly #2-3 starter stuff for a top-5 pitcher salary)? That's not the worst thing, but it might not end the championship drought.
The positives? Lots of innings, lots of strikeouts, few baserunners. A solid second-half pitcher, utterly dominant in that stretch from 2004-06.
The negatives? Won't ever complete a game for you (although, who does, really), gives up a decent amount of home runs, had a 4.04 second-half ERA this year, and had a 3.69 ERA on four days' rest (18 starts).
2007 was still a hell of a bad year, and Santana's second-half ERA (1.21, 1.59, 2.54) and four days' rest ERAs (2.89, 3.02, 2.41) from 2004-06 suggest '07 may be an aberration.
But, without Andy Pettitte, I just don't know if there's enough there, even with Santana, for 2008. Maybe I'm overvaluing Pettitte's fan value, but I don't know if I'm overstating the importance of the workhorse he represents.
Labels: Baseball
Despite an actually interesting NFL season, with the Patriots, a bunch of resurgent teams and the Dolphins' race for 0-16, people are still talking baseball a day before Thanksgiving.
Despite the NBA in full swing, the NHL pretending to be relevant, and snow closer to a regular occurrence for many, baseball's still on people's minds, such as Torii Hunter's and Melky Cabrera's status.
That's not a bad thing at all.
You just hope, if you're a Yankees fan, that baseball is also on Andy Pettitte's mind. Actually, even if you're not a Yankee fan, it's hard to see why you'd want a guy like him out of the game.
And they're right.
Maybe Boras didn't have a grand conspiracy planned with everything that's happened with Alex Rodriguez this off-season, but he's not damaged beyond repair.
And, you can argue the Yankees caved in.
I'll acknowledge, as Jerry Crasnick seems to say and Mike said in conversation yesterday, there are no losers.
The Yankees win because A-Rod signed a deal they wanted to offer, and Boras gets egg on his face, even if he'll have $14 million of napkins to wipe it off with (his expected commission).
A-Rod wins in again getting a record-setting contract, one that'll take him beyond his most-productive-if-substance-free years.
Boras still gets a huge contract and can spin that the Yankees, not him or his client, blinked.
And nobody should be bitching about the Yankees' contracts. Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera have been at the top of their respective pay scales for years. Posada was the best offensive catcher in baseball last year (and one of the top six or seven AL hitters), and probably for the decade. Rivera, in a down year, was still a top-tier closer with more endurance than the young guys (outside of maybe the overworked Huston Street).
A-Rod? He deserves the money, if one guy's to get it. Fairly young, far and away the best offensive player. Forget the counting stats -- you can have big numbers aided by a big offensive era. A truly dominant player leads his league in categories regardless of numbers. A-Rod has done that as well as anyone in the post-1992 home-run/steroid era: HR (five times), RBI (2), AVG (1), R (5), SLG (3), OPS (2).
OK. Enough negativity.
His mouth is getting pretty tiring, too, but he's never been a free agent, so he's obviously enjoying it a bit too much.
As for giving Mo a fourth year, besides the obvious concern -- he'll be 41 in that fourth year -- he showed dangerous decline (or temporary slippage) this year in the areas that were once signs of his unique dominance.
In 2007, Rivera posted a 3.15 ERA. Now, that's not so bad, and it's almost unfair to compare with his 2003-06 run of sub-1.90 ERAs.
But look at the splits. Rivera struggled (relatively) in 2007 without off-days
No rest: 12 games, 13.1 IP, 3.38 ERA, 18 baserunners
1 day rest: 21 games, 23.1 IP, 3.47 ERA, 34 baserunners (including 4 HBP!)
2 days rest: 11 games, 11.2 IP, 0.77 ERA, 11 baserunners
Maybe it's how Torre used him. He was pitching more innings per appearance on short rest versus a comfortable two days. And Rivera struggled most with three days rest (14 games, 13.2 IP, 5.27 ERA, 16 baserunners), which didn't help the bottom line.
Has Mo always been more reliable on two days rest?
Let's look.
2006:
0 days: 16 games, 16.2 IP, 1.62 ERA, 17 baserunners
1 day: 20 games, 26 IP(!), 0.69 ERA, 24 baserunners
2 days: 14 games, 18 IP, 2.00 ERA, 17 baserunners
3 days: 6 games, 6.1 IP, 4.26 ERA, 8 baserunners
2005:
0 days: 23 games, 24.1 IP, 1.11 ERA, 29 baserunners
1 day: 18 games, 20.2 IP, 1.74 ERA, 19 baserunners
2 days: 10 games, 10.1 IP, 0.00 ERA, 4 baserunners
3 days: 13 games, 16 IP, 2.25 ERA, 16 baserunners
In both years, Rivera was at his worst on three days rest, but there wasn't a tremendous difference between other common situations. He was dominant always. If he's lost that dominance on short rest, then he can still be a good closer, but it's tough to bet against further decline over four years.
But 2005 and 2006 were some of the best years ever by a closer! He nearly won the '05 Cy Young!
OK, fair enough. We'll look at Trevor Hoffman, his relative peer in age and saves, and Mo's worst season before 2007, which was 2000.
Hoffman in 2007 (age 39)
0 days: 21 G, 20.1 IP, 2.66 ERA, 22 MoB
1 day: 14 G, 12 IP, 8.25 ERA, 25 MoB
2 days: 7 G, 6.2 IP, 1.35 ERA, 5 MoB
3+ days: 19 G, 18.1 IP, 0.49 ERA, 10 MoB
Hoffman in 2006 (age 38)
0 days: 20 G, 20 IP, 2.25 ERA, 21 MoB
1 day: 15 G, 14 IP, 1.29 ERA, 13 MoB
2 days: 7 G, 7 IP, 3.86 ERA, 8 MoB
3 days: 13 G, 12.1 IP, 0.00 ERA, 9 MoB
4+days: 10 G, 9.2 IP, 4.66 ERA, 11 MoB
Rivera in 2000 (2.85 ERA)
0 days: 20 games, 21.1 IP, 2.53 ERA, 22 baserunners
1 day: 17 games, 20.2 IP, 2.61 ERA, 19 baserunners
2 days: 10 games, 10.1 IP, 3.48 ERA, 18 baserunners
3 days: 8 games, 9.2 IP, 2.79 ERA, 9 baserunners
6+ days: 6 games, 7 IP, 6.43 ERA, 10 baserunners
Rivera just doesn't have a track record of struggles on no rest or one day of rest. That's why 2007 is so troubling. And while Hoffman doesn't have a real pattern from the past two years, he pitches fewer innings and gets preferential rest compared with Rivera.
That's not going to be possible with the Yankees, unless they slip to a mid-80s win level a la the Padres. That may be good enough out there, but it won't work in the American League.
Records for the last year Alex Rodriguez played for a team and the following season:
2000 Seattle: 91-71, wild card, lost ALCS
2001 Seattle: 116-46, division title, lost ALCS
2003 Texas: 71-91
2004 Texas: 89-73
2007 Yankees: 94-68
2008 Yankees: ?
And, the team's records the year before getting A-Rod and the first year with him:
1994 Seattle: 49-63
1995 Seattle (142 A-Rod at-bats): 79-66, wild card, lost ALCS
1996 Seattle (first full year): 85-76
2000 Texas: 71-91
2001 Texas: 73-89
2003 Yankees: 101-61
2004 Yankees: 101-61
I think this trend of improvement post-A-Rod and little change by adding him will not be altered by much. Right now, the Yankees are a mess, but unless they re-sign nobody, they'll find a way to 90+ wins. The leading contenders for A-Rod, as rumored, already had a lot of wins (Mets, Angels, Cubs) or have lots of other potential problems (Dodgers, Giants). What does it mean? I have no idea, but it's fodder for the "to hell with A-Rod" crowd.
On June 21, I was pessimistic about Andy Pettitte's chances of getting 200 wins this season. Yes, it was possible, but his four wins in 15 starts to that point made it a challenge.
Well, here we are. Win #200, 12+ years after the first.
1. Who has more wins than Pettitte (200-112, 391 GS, 3.81 ERA) since the start of 1995?
Greg Maddux (212-122, 436 GS, 3.16 ERA) and Randy Johnson (203-88, 370 GS, 3.00 ERA). Mike Mussina is right behind him at 197. Roger Clemens is seventh with 182.
2. Where does Pettitte stack up among Yankees?
Out of pitchers who predominantly (or only) played for the Yankees, Whitey Ford and Red Ruffing are the tops. Ford won 236 games, all with the Yanks, and Ruffing won 231 for the Yanks and 42 for other teams. Pettitte, with 163 Yankee wins, is seventh, one behind Mel Stottlemyre.
3. How about with 20-win seasons?
Pettitte has two (1996 and 2003). Since Ron Guidry ('78, '83, '85) retired, no other Yankee has won 20 games more than once (David Cone in 1998, Clemens in 2001). And the last three (Andy, Guidry and Tommy John in 1979-80) were all lefties.
4. So how's he do among lefties?
He's the 27th to get to 200. Of those, only six have made the trek to 300, Tom Glavine being the last. Pettitte is 35 years, 3 months and 4 days. Glavine was 34 years, 4 months and 5 days when he hit 200 in a season in which he won 21. So the odds aren't great. What does Baseball-Reference say? His two most-similar pitchers through age 34 are Mike Mussina (not bad) and Dwight Gooden (disastrous). We'll see.
4. But he doesn't complete any games, right?
Nope, but who does anymore? Still, Pettitte has the fewest complete games of any 200-game winner in history, with six fewer than Jamie Moyer.
5. So where does he rank best among 200-game winners?
Well, postseason wins, where he and John Smoltz stand tall. Unfortunately, he does have the sixth-worst regular season ERA of any 200-game winner since 1957 (and probably ever), though guys below him include active pitchers David Wells, Kenny Rogers and Moyer.
Where Pettitte ranks best, and is something for which he'd acknowledge he is lucky, is in winning percentage. His .641 mark is behind only Clemens, Johnson and Martinez since 1957 (Ford, of course, posted a .690 mark).
We all know Pettitte's a very good pitcher who may be a borderline Hall of Fame case because of his affiliation with a Yankee dynasty and a great Houston Astros run. But somebody's gotta be on the mound to get all those wins, and Pettitte is still doing that, all these years later. It's a great day.
Remember all this talk I've had about Phil Hughes and maybe even Ian Kennedy joining the playoff rotation? Apparently, Mike Mussina was upset about it, and decided to post his best performance of the year (by 10 Game Score points, no less).
And while, hey, Joe Torre's going to go with the vets unless he absolutely can't, Mussina still needed to reinstill confidence.
And he has, although he needs multiple quality starts to truly dispel doubt.
However you look at it, the rotation is rounding into shape at just the right time, and it's becoming a, if not feared, then formidable bunch lacking since 2003.
As for closing the gap with Boston and pulling away from Detroit, I've called both races long ago, so while a pleasant development, I'm not going crazy over it. However, as I said months ago, I'd love to be proven wrong about the A.L. East. Thing is, if they are to overtake the Sox, it'll have been because they focused on the wild card and let the rest of life control itself. And that's the difference between this team and say, Boston last year and so many years before.
Last night's game reminded me of my one time in Fenway Park. Neither game changed the outcome of the season (both teams were leading the playoff race each year), but both were wins the Yankees perhaps needed more than the Sox.
There were some familiar faces last night. Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Mike Timlin, Johnny Damon (in the home dugout), David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, Jason Giambi and Hideki Matsui all played July 25, 2003 and last night.
But David Wells and Pedro Martinez were the starters, Jesse Orosco and Armando Benitez came in briefly in relief for the Yanks, and Byung-Hyun Kim took the loss for Boston. Wells had six walks on the season entering the game; he walked five. Pedro walked four, too, and it was obvious no one was happy with the umpiring. Manny Ramirez forgot how many outs there were on a fly ball and was doubled up, and though Rivera blew the save (coming in mid-inning and giving up his traditional broken-bat blooper), he closed the door in the ninth when given a second chance.
Fenway's an amazing ballpark, if so tiny that it's easy to forget it houses a major-league team. But still, it was nice to see this when we got up to leave at game's end.
Labels: Baseball, classic-review, Yankees
That's what tonight's game was, besides a chance to gain ground in the faint hopes of an A.L. East title and distance the Yankees from the resurgent Tigers.
Phil Hughes is on the bubble, I'd think. Ian Kennedy could throw three no-hitters and I still don't think Joe Torre would bench a combination of two of Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and Hughes to give the rook a playoff start. I may be wrong, but that's my theory going forward.
Clemens, barring injury, will get a start. There's no way you pay him $1 million or more a start, and he's had his moments. Oddly enough, Clemens is fine on regular rest (4-2, 3.23 ERA in 53 innings) and on super-long rest of six days or more (2-0, 2.50 ERA, 18 IP, 19 K), but atrocious in a six-man rotation setup (0-3, 7.29 ERA in four starts).
So it comes down to Moose and Hughes. Phil protected his turf tonight with his typical two runs early, nothing late, but 5.2 innings against the Orioles isn't exactly awe-inspiring. And in a playoff situation, do you want to almost guarantee an early deficit? And even though he settles down, usually, as far as runs scored are, his inning-by-inning OPS splits coming into tonight (.857, .505, .866, .494, .973, .211) suggest he simply is overpowering the weak hitters in a lineup and failing against the better ones.
I'd take Hughes right now, but this may have to be a last-minute decision. Given, of course, the team wins the wild card.
I did my best to try and ignore the Yanks-Red Sox series. Why, despite my earlier love for the rivalry?
Well, the division title was not at stake, as it hasn't been for months. It's always overly hyped, especially at the 19 or so games they play annually, as if each game will make or break a player's psyche, career and reputation in the community.
But what the hell, it's Sunday night baseball, with the affable Jon Miller and the gloriously off-base Joe Morgan. So let's take on this task.
Read more...
Pre-game: NFL highlights still going on. What a busy as hell weekend. Tiger Woods dominating as even he has rarely done; Notre Dame proving it must have really hated Ty Willingham because it would rather be 0-3 than have him; the Giants already quitting on the 2007 season, among a million other NFL subplots; and of course, O.J.
My God, the cojones this man has. He admits he went into the room, with guys he met at a wedding party (loyal friends, I'm sure), as part of sting operation. A sting operation? Who does he think he is, Chris Hansen?
Well, Jon Miller just told us this is Clemens' 200th start at Fenway. I don't know why, but it's not a good sign. I'm seeing headlines like "200th Fenway start should be his last." Joe Morgan told us Clemens is a competitor. So am I, Joe. But I'm not pitching tonight.
1st inning: Talking with my friend Mike, who's noting a huge amount of strikeouts for hitters, but not many for the league leaders. As in, not many guys with 200. I think most of that is the lack of innings pitched. When few guys throw 200 innings, they have to be lights-out every start.
Derek Jeter gets another hit, continuing his stretch of hitting the Red Sox and not hitting anyone else. But nothing comes of it.
Looking at catchers similar to Jorge Posada's career track, and I picked on Carlton Fisk's age 35 year. But I forgot to mention his age 37 season (37 HR, 107 RBI, 17 steals). Damn good.
Now, Johnny Damon loses a ball in the lights. Understandable, but less so because Damon played for a few years in that ballpark.
By the way, Roger Clemens shows his age most when he lets guys steal on him. Old men don't have pickoff moves or fast deliveries. Still, he's a competitor. A competitor who just walked David Ortiz, which is not a bad move considering he's the only truly lethal bat in the lineup.
This inning is not as bad as it could have been, thanks to Dougie M.'s amazing dive to snare the ball and tap the bag. That's not an old man. Notice Clemens wasn't even in the picture frame -- he's not covering that bag.
Epilogue: Well, I did a terrible job of liveblogging past this point because I was talking on the phone and watching instead of typing and watching.
Things that came up, though, some Yankee-related:
1. Fastest-moving Yanks-Red Sox game in a while. Roger Clemens is still a great pitcher, but one who needs more rest than usual. Tonight, against an equally failing, though gifted, ace in Curt Schilling, it's easy to see how he's the game's greatest post-WWII pitcher. And don't bitter Boston fans fool you: Clemens has dominated the Sox in his two starts this year, and the 1999 ALCS disaster against Pedro was a lifetime ago.
Schilling has the Phil Hughes problem in reverse: He doesn't have an out pitch when guys are on base, but he tries to strike everyone out. Except his pitches are getting worse, his velocity is less-debated but terrible, and he's old and in dubious physical condition. He's a smart pitcher, though, and just ran out of luck in the eighth.
2. Derek Jeter since Aug. 12 coming into tonight: .239/.317/.319 5 XBH in 113 at-bats.
Jeter against the Red Sox since Aug. 12: .480/.500/.880 4 XBH in 25 at-bats.
3. Lou Pinella -- Hall of Fame manager? I'd say yes, considering he took a Cincinnati team that did nothing else to a World Series sweep over a good Oakland team defending its title, is the only Mariners manager to lead that team to the playoffs, and has made an imploding Cubs team the most dangerous team in the National League (although that Michael Barrett trade didn't hurt).
4. If Mike Mussina or Roger Clemens don't start an ALDS game, do you want either on the roster? Can Joe Torre drop one of them, though? No, and no. However, Roger looks like he'll be starting somewhere, and it's a tough call to bump Hughes for the Moose. Both are six-inning pitchers, but Moose might not even be that, and he finishes his starts poorly, whereas Hughes finishes strong.
5. Hypothetical: Mariano Rivera continues to struggle, for him, the rest of the year. Maybe even blows a save in the off-season. Then, he and his agent, Fernando Cuza, ask for a three-year contract.
Do you consider saying, it's been great, Mo, but we've got a guy named Joba Chamberlain who's all ready to be a closer, a potentially six-out closer you are no longer? You can't, but should you?
6. The Tigers are worth worrying about, but the Yankees need to worry about their problems with potential playoff opponents. Though Mike insists, and not incorrectly, that the Yankees match up with the Angels better than ever, there's that awful track record.
The Indians, despite their pathetic play versus the Yankees, are a damn good, exciting team. Their ace, C.C. Sabathia, has dominated Johan Santana to the point that there's whispers of A-Rod-like big-spot disappointment. And the Yanks? They haven't faced Sabathia since September of 2004. Ruben Sierra was in that lineup. That's not a good sign. Neither is the potential of facing Sabathia and Carmona four times in five games.
Pick your poison. But first, hold off the Tigers.
7. How bad-ass does Jodie Foster look in that otherwise silly-looking movie where she goes around killing people? Sure, there may (or may not) be a morality lesson there, but really, we just want to see an Oscar-winning chick shooting people.
Anyways, a somewhat failed effort, but some good baseball tonight.
Labels: Baseball, Liveblogging, Yankees
Ian Kennedy is not quite Mel Stottlemyre, but could he be the Yankees' No. 4 starter in a playoff series?
I don't think so, only because Joe Torre would be signing his dismissal sheet (if one exists) by benching 600+ worth of wins in Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens. And there's huge, legitimate worries of starting a rookie who's thrown 60+ innings more than any year post-HS.
But it might be a gamble worth taking.
In other news, Melky, you're killing me in the last month (.263/.307/.316). So are you, Captain Punchless (.256/.351/.329 in the last four weeks).
The most-successful pitcher and the best hitter in baseball played prominent roles for the Yankees today, and it's those two who are going to make the difference in October (that's right, the wild card is locked up).
Alex Rodriguez's postseason struggles are well-documented over the last two years. Chien-Ming Wang has been bitten by the bad-luck bug -- in 2005, he gave up one earned run in 6.2 innings, but he took the loss because the Yanks had three errors. In 2006, he earned a Game 1 win, but never got to pitch again.
He should have been started on three days' rest instead of the disaster that was Jaret Wright and Corey Lidle. But, as we all know, Joe Torre was secretly betting millions against the Yankees in the 2006 ALDS, so he had to draw up inane lineups, bat A-Rod eighth and not pitch Wang.
Regardless, Wang is going to be even more vital to the Yanks this year. But today was an impressive audition for what might be.
As for A-Rod's home-run chase, he remains three behind Maris through game #143, though Maris started to struggle (understandably) at this point.
Alex Rodriguez has jumped his projections quite a bit in the last few games. He's at 51 home runs now, the same amount Cecil Fielder had in his entire 1990 season and the amount Ralph Kiner and Johnny Mize had to share the 1947 home run title.
Alex is at team game #142. Roger Maris' game #142 was also Sept. 8. He went 0-for-3 after belting a homer on consecutive days. But he already had 55 home runs, and would add another Sept. 9 before going into a mini-slump, belting only four the rest of the way.
So, Alex has his work cut out for him. But there's a chance for the A.L. record, and what some may consider the true, untainted record.
Mike Puma, formerly of the Connecticut Post and now of the New York version, makes the case that A-Rod is on the same plane as Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle and Joe D.
One thing he's off on, however, is saying how Ruth's 1927 season (.356, 60 HR, 164 RBI, 158 R) is the gold standard. In popular practice, yes. But really, and this is something no one is expected to touch, it's Ruth's 1921 season, where he put up a .378/.512/.846 line, 59 HR, 171 RBI, 177 R, and 119 extra-base hits.
Tonight, we get a test for Ian Kennedy, who's pitching on the road and against a bad team, but bad teams have caused Yankee letdowns all year. I'm thinking five to six innings, three runs in a slight regression from the hype and excitement of his debut. He's probably better than Chase Wright, Tyler Clippard and Matt DeSalvo, but still. They went 2-0 in their debut starts, pitching 18 innings, giving up but five runs on 11 hits. Their second starts? Only DeSalvo won, and the three pitched 13.2 innings, with nine runs on 18 hits. DeSalvo cratered after that, going 0-3 in five games (four starts) with 24 hits and 16 earned runs in 14 innings.
So not to knock Kennedy at all (especially because he's not a 4A guy like those above), but don't worry if he's not lights-out tonight.
Top Yankees performances in the last 45 years (1962-2007):
HR: 48 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2005, 2007 (and counting)
44 -- Tino Martinez, 1997
41 -- Reggie Jackson, 1980; Jason Giambi, 2002, 2003
RBI: 145 -- Don Mattingly, 1985
141 -- Tino Martinez, 1997
134 (and counting) -- Alex Rodriguez, 2007
130 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2005
123 -- Tino Martinez, 1998; Gary Sheffield, 2005
SLG%: .651 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2007
.610 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2005
.605 -- Mickey Mantle, 1962
.603 -- Paul O'Neill, 1994
OPS: 1.091 -- Mickey Mantle, 1962
1.069 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2007
1.063 -- Paul O'Neill, 1994
1.033 -- Jason Giambi, 2002
1.031 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2005
Adjusted OPS: 181 -- Bobby Murcer, 1971
179 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2007
177 -- Paul O'Neill, 1994
174 -- Jason Giambi, 2002
172 -- Reggie Jackson, 1980
At bats per HR: 10.6 -- Alex Rodriguez, 2007
12.1 -- Jason Giambi, 2006
12.3 -- Darryl Strawberry, 1998
12.5 -- Reggie Jackson, 1980
12.6 -- Mickey Mantle, 1962; Alex Rodriguez, 2005
Did I cherry-pick these stats a bit. Absolutely. But A-Rod is having the greatest Yankee season since the Maris-Mantle home run chase. He's chasing the ghosts of Yankee history, no one else. And look at the comparisons in these lists: Mantle's 1962 MVP season, Reggie's best year in pinstripes, Jason Giambi's best two years in New York, Paul O'Neill's batting title year, and his own 2005 MVP campaign. He's passed all of those, and there's still 20+ games to go.
By the way, how good was Bobby Murcer? OPS+ of 181 in 1971 led the league, and his 169 the next year was second. Career-wise, he's a 124, right there with Jeff Kent, Jorge Posada, Derrek Lee and Derek Jeter.
Wouldn't it be nice? Just as in 2003, the two most-important players to their teams might be Alex Rodriguez and Jorge Posada. Except this year, they play on the same team (with apologies to fine candidate Magglio Ordonez and the ever-relaxed, amazing Vladimir Guerrerro).
If there's been one constant this year with the Yanks, it's that Posada and A-Rod (and Jeter until August) were going to produce or put up a hell of a battle in defeat. Chien-Ming Wang can be added to that, and he, again, is tied for the league lead in wins. He has 36 since the start of 2006. Johan Santana has 33, as does Josh Beckett. Brad Penny has 31. Brandon Webb, Roy Halladay and Carlos Zambrano have 30.
Wang wins. That's it.
Anyway, it was a much better game to watch and write about than the day before, where 601 career wins brought nothing but crap pitching and pathetic hitting.
The Yanks still need to win this rubber match game with the Mariners. A three-game lead will allow for more wild inconsistency; a one-game lead probably won't. Depending on Seattle to struggle isn't such a fun option, either: As I stated July 30, the Red Sox and Indians did not continue to struggle, and though the Yanks' torrid play made up ground on both, it wasn't enough. Fortunately, Detroit fell apart, Minnesota and Oakland never made a run, and Seattle didn't run away with anything.
But the Yankees must continue to win. A lot. And act as if every loss is a dagger. As appealing as backing into the playoffs is, it's not something you can do without a ton of luck. And the Yanks, judging by their Pythagorean stats, are in short supply of luck this year.
I went to one of those old-school baseball tourneys today, where they play underhanded according to 1864 rules (where one-bounce catches are outs, you can't run through first base and a walk moves baserunners up). There was also 1898 rules, much the same as today, except for no full windups, no big gloves and foul balls not being strikes. Then, there's a whole bunch of years in-between based on frequent rules changes.
It's fascinating baseball, and the teams get into it, with vintage-looking uniforms, umpires dressed in old-time garb (including a cane in the 1864 version) and address each other, most of the times, as "sir" or "gentlemen."
The only drawbacks? The games are interminably long, as it's difficult to catch barehanded, and even a 2-hour (or nine-inning) limit doesn't keep games from getting into the 20s. It's still exciting, and each version requires slightly different strategy. Most of the clubs there seemed to have a specialty. The underhanded game seems to benefit the older player a bit, as the 1890s rules are too allowing of power (pitching and hitting) for a team without some under-30 stars to do well.
Best of all, it allowed me to see in person what Conan O'Brien did. Much recommended for a day of surprisingly quality ball and nostalgia without the hassles.
There's been a lot of complaints about the series the last few years. About how it distracts from any other event in baseball, no matter how exciting; about how it is simply the collaboration of two overpriced teams with spoiled, jerk fans; about how the rivalry is simply overrated; and about the way MLB schedules them, with too many games in April and not enough in September.
Well, ignore that for now, as the Yanks hold a 2-0 lead in the fifth, again walking everyone but not surrendering hits. Here's what's good:
1. The ambient noise. The opposing team's fans fill the other team's ballpark more and more, and the chatter is never-ending. The fans want to be there, they want to one-up the enemy and they want to pay attention. Not quite the corporate crowd that can emerge at playoff time, for instance.
2. Aces and sluggers humbled. The aces (Pettitte, Schilling, Clemens, Beckett, Wakefield, formerly Mussina and Pedro) have to bring their A-game or they will be absolutely embarrassed. There's little or no room for error. Same goes for the best hitters. They may crank a couple home runs or they may be struck out three times. Again, not much different from the mean, but everyone notices it more.
3. The psychological game plays. For decades, it was the Red Sox fan panicking innings, days, or months before it was necessary, which would look silly if the Sox didn't always justify that worry with a collapse in play. The Yanks balanced the superiority complex with a hint of "what if?" doubt.
Now, both teams and their fans try to hold on to their previous personas without a great deal of success. Yes, the track record is still of Red Sox failure and Yankee dominance. But the here-and-now is much more muddled. Since 2003, it's truly been a rivalry, which is scarier for Yankees fans but makes for more-dramatic baseball.
Labels: Baseball
And though I hadn't thought of it much, it seems that he doesn't have much of a game plan -- or at least one that's different from when he could throw 93 mph.
Al Leiter was talking about this on the air a few weeks ago, saying how, as he lost velocity in his last couple years, he couldn't make the adjustment. Not all pitchers can. Either they never had the greatest of breaking stuff, or they can't quite reduce speed on the off-speeders to match the decline in the fastball. Leiter is rough on himself: In his next-to-last season, he was 10-8, 3.21, 1.353 WHIP and 5th in H/9, though he dipped below six innings per start.
On the other hand, it only takes one year to make a collapse, and Moose has certainly done that, just as David Cone did from 1999 to 2000.
Ian Kennedy has a tall order ahead. But it's just as much an audition for next year (and for Mike Mussina's future) as it is to aid a playoff run.
His velocity is down, according to GM Brian Cashman here and here.
What does that mean? Mechanics, not enough uninterrupted throwing after his injury, fatigue, or something else. At least the Yankees are noticing it and looking to see what can be done. But it's probably another step in getting a realistic assessment of Hughes.
As Yankees Tonight says, if Hughes complains about it, then it's a real problem. Until then, it's just something to keep tabs on.
As for tonight's game, I refer you to Andy Pettitte, losing-streak stopper.
Other than, please take Mike Mussina out of the rotation? I don't know. Jorge Posada and Derek Jeter had another game of hitlessness, and Sean Henn failed in the only suitable role he has -- mop-up man.
Playoffs, you seem over. But this team is unpredictable with its winning streaks when all hope seems lost and its ability to tank when it has a real chance to change things. The Yanks, either way, have sealed themselves as the most-expensive tease on record.
Michael Kay seems to think so, from what he said on yesterday's broadcast (and Al Leiter didn't exactly put up a fight). Hughes' supporters, some of whom are here, point out he's the youngest starter in the league (except Felix Rodriguez?) and he's essentially gone from Double A to the majors.
Here's what I see: He can't blow anyone away with his fastball. The Yanks, or him, or Posada/Molina, have him not throwing much besides fastballs and curveballs, which means he is getting a lot of strikeouts on the curve. Well, when there are guys in scoring position and two or three balls in the count, you can't throw that in-the-dirt curve. The fastball then becomes closer to a batting-practice pitch than an out pitch, and you depend upon a batter's mistake or superb defensive placement and ability to save you.
But that's not overrated. If anything, it's misplaced expectations, in part created by the six no-hit innings against the Texas Rangers. Even with a B+ fastball, he's still got about a strikeout an inning, something no other Yankee starter has close to matching.
Plus, he's held up under the pressure and not felt compelled to rush or hide his head in shame because he gives up some runs.
What are the solutions to the wall, of sorts, that he's hit?
1. Start throwing changeups and give the fastball the illusion of a 95-mph heater.
2. Become more of a Maddux/Glavine location pitcher. Neither is a strikeout king, but both can get big outs when they need them.
3. Have a natural learning curve and become better through repetition.
The only issue? Time. Doing any of those takes time, as it should, and it probably won't bring magical results this year.
As it is, this Phil Hughes that only has displayed a couple of weapons and a mislocated, misused fastball is a decent pitcher. He's good enough to keep in the rotation and good enough to hope that he and the team find that better path of pitching.
As for him being an ace, Andy Pettitte has never truly been an ace, yet he's had two 20-win seasons, eight seasons of 200+ innings and a career 119 ERA+. I'll take something similar.
After a terrible loss last night, it was good to see the team bounce back, and especially good to see Chein-Ming Wang revert to 2006 form (eight innings, two runs).
The most-surprising thing tonight was not a fully productive outfield (Johnny Damon homer and triple, Melky Cabrera triple, Bobby Abreu multi-hit game) but that the team knocked Jeremy Bonderman around the diamond without a hit from Derek Jeter or Jorge Posada. They went 0-for-10, the worst combined performance the two have had this season.
From the beginning of the season until June 24 (72 games), in no game did Jeter and Posada both go hitless. Through Aug. 5, they had done so only four times in 111 games. Since then, however, they have combined in futility six times in 18 games, including three times in four days (Aug. 14,15 and 17).
What does this mean? Maybe nothing other than a natural, slight cooling off for two players who have hit extremely well all year. Jeter has hit .284/.363/.358 this month, continuing a trend toward being a great singles hitter, though he's getting on base more in recent years. Posada, however, has hit .311/.425/.607 this month, meaning he's making up for these 0-fers.
If you need yet another reason that Posada is having a blessed year, look at his BA with balls hit in play splits: by month, .351/.443/.343/.431/.357. That's some luck, but I have to think it's also because every time I see him bat, he smokes the ball.
You're terrible. I stayed up to watch you give up a three-run home run to Carlos Guillen. I stayed up to listen to Michael Kay ramble on and call that home run like it was Derek Jeter in the World Series.
I stayed up to watch a disastrous step backward for the Yankees.
I stayed up, worst of all, to watch a titantic blast off what was actually one hell of a good pitch.
You can't win them all, but right now it feels as if they can't win the right ones. Let's see how it feels in the daylight.
Oh, if only the Yankees played in the American League Central, you might say. They'd be beating up on the Indians and the Tigers. The team's entire winning record and then some is based on its 26-8 mark against the division. Imagine if the Yanks played 76 games there.
Further, imagine if the American League was still in its old two-division setup. You'd have the Yanks, Red Sox, Indians and Tigers (and the Brewers) in a mad dash for two spots, with the Angels and Mariners fighting for the West and the wild card. It's still dramatic now, but even more so in a two-division scenario.
Anyways, the Yanks have many things going for them. The hitting is generally consistent. They have an ace in Andy Pettitte, a generally solid, if not spectactular, Roger Clemens, Phil Hughes and Chien-Ming Wang, and a hit-or-miss fifth starter who just so happens to have 240+ career wins. The bullpen hasn't been this good since the 1996 playoffs, and the momentum is with the team.
Still, the Mariners and Red Sox need to lose games.
I don't have a prediction, quite frankly. It's too hard to judge. I made the early call to concede the division, but I do so partly because the mindset of chasing the wild card is important. Being eight games under .500 on May 29 is not good if there's a wild card; it's back up the truck if there isn't.
From now on, let's just enjoy the Joba show while it lasts. Let's enjoy the cagey vets Pettitte and Clemens when they are on; let's enjoy the greatest over-30 catcher EVER and two men who will get at least 3,000 hits (A-Rod and Jeter, don't ya know), and all the mystique that comes with the team. Let's enjoy the game as Phil Rizzuto would have, good or bad.
Because, if we do, I think the game will reward us back. Maybe even with a 27th ring.