It's Not For Lack Of Trying
I've wanted to post but the words just fail me. Every time I got a thought, it just ran away.
I simply don't know what to say about this team any more. I have faith, though, that they will inspire Me, soon.
Friends In Low Places
Apparently one can not be a credentialed member of the New York media without swearing one's undying loyalty to Joe Torre, and the legend thereof.
The latest gem I'm aware of is courtesy of Yankees' broadcaster and ESPN radio host Michael Kay. Monday Kay dismissed a caller who complained about Torre with this gem:
"Joe Torre's not the problem -- he's been managing the same way for eleven years."
Is the media so mesmerized by Torre that they have lost all common sense? Michael, for the record -- and read this slowly, and repeatedly necessary:
When a manager manages the same way, without the same kind of team, then the manager is the problem.
If we still had Wetteland and Stanton and Nelson and Mendoza in their primes, hell yes -- I'd be routinely pulling the starters at the first sign of trouble. But that ship has sailed. The bullpen isn't as good and (this is related, of course) the starters aren't as good. You have to manage differently with a different kind of team.
Michael . . . is that really so difficult a concept to grasp? Joe is a big part of the problem. And one of the few parts that can be readily fixed.
[Thank you, iris, for pointing Me to Kay's comment.]
Party Like It's 1959
I've written before about how perhaps this, 2007, is "that year." The year where it all goes wrong and a team with good talent just doesn't perform. The 1959 Yankees. Mostly all the same guys who won the World Series the year before, and lost the World Series in seven games to an inferior team the following year. It's just that stuff happens, sometimes.
Predicting "that year" is a tough business. I was pretty sure that 2006 was "that year" (and in retrospect I wish that it had been).
I started to wonder if somehow what's happened since 2000 isn't in some measure a balancing of the books. Perhaps it's payback time. The bill coming due for every whacked-out move Torre made that he got away with. Every Luis Sojo clutch postseaon hit. David Cone in relief in the World Series. The perfect games. The ball call on that 2-2 pitch from Mark Langston to Tino Martinez. Ricky Ledee getting a clutch hit off Kevin Brown (the good, pre-Yankees Kevin Brown). Joe playing the B team, the C team, the D team, hell I think Skippy the ball boy pitched a couple games for us back then and no one knew it and we still won.
I know. There's really no "evening up." But sometimes I still do wonder.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Songs Remain The Same, Part 2 (With Previously Unreleased Bonus Tracks)
Song 3: Like Deja Vu All Over Again
Some games, you just know. Even before the first pitch. Wednesday night was one of those where I knew.
I heard all I needed to hear when they were giving the scouting report on the Rockies' pitcher. I didn't even hear the whole thing. But I heard the magic words.
"Doesn't throw very hard . . . good changeup."
We're losing this game, I said to Myself (and to iris, actually). Do the math. Pitcher we've never seen + doesn't throw hard + changes speeds + good control = Yankees do nothing against him.
And then, as Ive' seen at least 15 times over the last 2+ seasons in this scenario, we go. Quietly.
Weak grounder to second.
Swing and miss at an 85 mph fastball.
Lazy fly to center on a 3-1 pitch.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Pettitte does his best for five innings but when he gives up that home run to fall behind 2-1 the game's over. Colorado adds a few runs for show in the late innings.
Sound familiar? It ought to.
Song 4: "We're Not Hitting"
I rarely watch the postgame show(s), win or lose, but last night I couldn't be bothered to change the channel after the game ended so I caught Joe Torre with the press.
Joe's assessment of last night was basically, "we're not hitting."
Now, as of last night it was just two games that we were "not hitting," so I'd challenge the assessment "not hitting." But, OK, let's not quibble there. Where Joe's comment really irks Me is that he said that instead of saying something 1) constructive and 2) challenging at the same time.
Something like: "Guys, our approach at the plate tonight, and last night too, actually, was . . . I'll be truthful, unacceptable. It irks Me a little bit to sit there and watch us making decent pitchers look like Walter Johnson time and time again -- swinging at first pitches and bad pitches. This team is better than that, taking nothing away from the job of pitching that [Rockies' pitcher] did. I expect better from us offensively."
I know. There's 15 different reasons Joe would never say that. And that's one just one more reason he needs to be fired.
Song 5: Riot In Cell Block Number 9
The players love Joe Torre. We hear this time and time again. And I'm sure that it is absolutely, positively true.
It's true because, among other reasons, under Torre, the players, especially veteran players to dictate exactly what they will do and how they will do it (as long it doesn't involve any of George's rules on facial hair).
It's obvious that Johnny Damon is pretty badly hurt. In fact, Wednesday, after taking BP in the cage, Damon announced "my ribs are shot."
And yet he's not put on the DL. Joe's favorite group from the early 70s was Blind Faith, apparently, since Joe continues to use him even though he is useless right now, offensively and defensively. [One could even argue that Damon starting in CF today actually cost us the game, since the man who scored Colorado's fourth run most likely is on second instead of third when the sac fly is hit, if Melky is playing center at that point. But let's not get involved in that Michael Kay calls "the fallacy of the predetermined outcome." Which, while he has a point about, he takes way too far -- most of what happens in baseball would still have happened if you only change one little thing. But I digress . . . ]
His "ribs are shot." Put him on the DL instead of throwing away at bats and costing us defensively.
Who's running the show here?
Never mind . . . no need to answer that.
[Credit goes to iris for this topic.]
Song 6: Team Mascot, Bert Lahr
Bert Lahr played the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, and he is the perfect mascot for this team. This team for some years now simply can't take a punch. Like a cowardly lion, or a fighter with perfect musculature and a glass jaw, we usually fold up in the face of daunting circumstances. It's most evident in the playoffs but it happens all the time in the regular season, too. That's masked by the fact that we do seem to bounce back, and always figure a way to make the playoffs [thanks to the rest of the AL East minus Boston, and to Boston's fairly regular swoon jobs]. And in the playoffs our lack of heart is quickly exposed.
Granted, this is not the Rockies of old. They are better then they've been, but they are not a great team yet, and to get swept by them, topped off by getting shut down by (omg!) Rodrigo Lopez, is beyond the pale. Five runs in three games. In Coors Field. Humidor or not, that's pathetic.
Can anyone on this staff besides Wang respond, please? I really don't want to hear that Mussina "pitched well enough to win." No he didn't. He pitched well enough to lose. Clemens today, in a spot where we needed a big effort . . . 4.1 innings, 7 hits, 4 runs, all earned, 2 homers, 90 pitches.
$1 million a start. For that kind of money I expect a much better effort in game that psychologically was very important not to lose.
Could it be we've had too many mercenaries (Giambi, Sheffield, Clemens, Brown, Pavano, Johnson, etc.) on this team lately? Guys who don't get excited unless there's some problem with their paycheck?
Perish the thought.
Kei Igawa, who when last seen in the big leagues was doing a remarkably good impression of a deer in the headlights, starts tomorrow night in San Francisco.
Igawa the stopper. Heaven help us.
Some games, you just know. Even before the first pitch. Wednesday night was one of those where I knew.
I heard all I needed to hear when they were giving the scouting report on the Rockies' pitcher. I didn't even hear the whole thing. But I heard the magic words.
"Doesn't throw very hard . . . good changeup."
We're losing this game, I said to Myself (and to iris, actually). Do the math. Pitcher we've never seen + doesn't throw hard + changes speeds + good control = Yankees do nothing against him.
And then, as Ive' seen at least 15 times over the last 2+ seasons in this scenario, we go. Quietly.
Weak grounder to second.
Swing and miss at an 85 mph fastball.
Lazy fly to center on a 3-1 pitch.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Pettitte does his best for five innings but when he gives up that home run to fall behind 2-1 the game's over. Colorado adds a few runs for show in the late innings.
Sound familiar? It ought to.
Song 4: "We're Not Hitting"
I rarely watch the postgame show(s), win or lose, but last night I couldn't be bothered to change the channel after the game ended so I caught Joe Torre with the press.
Joe's assessment of last night was basically, "we're not hitting."
Now, as of last night it was just two games that we were "not hitting," so I'd challenge the assessment "not hitting." But, OK, let's not quibble there. Where Joe's comment really irks Me is that he said that instead of saying something 1) constructive and 2) challenging at the same time.
Something like: "Guys, our approach at the plate tonight, and last night too, actually, was . . . I'll be truthful, unacceptable. It irks Me a little bit to sit there and watch us making decent pitchers look like Walter Johnson time and time again -- swinging at first pitches and bad pitches. This team is better than that, taking nothing away from the job of pitching that [Rockies' pitcher] did. I expect better from us offensively."
I know. There's 15 different reasons Joe would never say that. And that's one just one more reason he needs to be fired.
Song 5: Riot In Cell Block Number 9
The players love Joe Torre. We hear this time and time again. And I'm sure that it is absolutely, positively true.
It's true because, among other reasons, under Torre, the players, especially veteran players to dictate exactly what they will do and how they will do it (as long it doesn't involve any of George's rules on facial hair).
It's obvious that Johnny Damon is pretty badly hurt. In fact, Wednesday, after taking BP in the cage, Damon announced "my ribs are shot."
And yet he's not put on the DL. Joe's favorite group from the early 70s was Blind Faith, apparently, since Joe continues to use him even though he is useless right now, offensively and defensively. [One could even argue that Damon starting in CF today actually cost us the game, since the man who scored Colorado's fourth run most likely is on second instead of third when the sac fly is hit, if Melky is playing center at that point. But let's not get involved in that Michael Kay calls "the fallacy of the predetermined outcome." Which, while he has a point about, he takes way too far -- most of what happens in baseball would still have happened if you only change one little thing. But I digress . . . ]
His "ribs are shot." Put him on the DL instead of throwing away at bats and costing us defensively.
Who's running the show here?
Never mind . . . no need to answer that.
[Credit goes to iris for this topic.]
Song 6: Team Mascot, Bert Lahr
Bert Lahr played the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, and he is the perfect mascot for this team. This team for some years now simply can't take a punch. Like a cowardly lion, or a fighter with perfect musculature and a glass jaw, we usually fold up in the face of daunting circumstances. It's most evident in the playoffs but it happens all the time in the regular season, too. That's masked by the fact that we do seem to bounce back, and always figure a way to make the playoffs [thanks to the rest of the AL East minus Boston, and to Boston's fairly regular swoon jobs]. And in the playoffs our lack of heart is quickly exposed.
Granted, this is not the Rockies of old. They are better then they've been, but they are not a great team yet, and to get swept by them, topped off by getting shut down by (omg!) Rodrigo Lopez, is beyond the pale. Five runs in three games. In Coors Field. Humidor or not, that's pathetic.
Can anyone on this staff besides Wang respond, please? I really don't want to hear that Mussina "pitched well enough to win." No he didn't. He pitched well enough to lose. Clemens today, in a spot where we needed a big effort . . . 4.1 innings, 7 hits, 4 runs, all earned, 2 homers, 90 pitches.
$1 million a start. For that kind of money I expect a much better effort in game that psychologically was very important not to lose.
Could it be we've had too many mercenaries (Giambi, Sheffield, Clemens, Brown, Pavano, Johnson, etc.) on this team lately? Guys who don't get excited unless there's some problem with their paycheck?
Perish the thought.
Kei Igawa, who when last seen in the big leagues was doing a remarkably good impression of a deer in the headlights, starts tomorrow night in San Francisco.
Igawa the stopper. Heaven help us.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
You Too Can Write For Foxsports.com
What The . . . ?
I happened to read a column by Ken Rosenthal today. Rosenthal is a senior writer (ooooo!) for foxsports.com, and you may have seen/heard his stands reports during Fox Saturday telecasts.
The column I read today had as its central theme that the Yankees should trade Philip Hughes to Texas for Mark Teixiera.
Along the way Rosenthal makes some observations that are so wrong, so egregiously wrong, that I can't let them them pass without comment.
His basic premise is that we should trade Hughes because, well, prospects don't always pan out, and the Yankees need Teixiera.
Um, Ken, have you been paying any attention to the Yankees the last month or so? Offense at first base wasn't this team's problem, and certainly isn't now. The Yankees have cut Boston's lead significantly and are right there for the wild card with basically no offensive contribution from first base. And going forward they don't need other than what Cairo will give them.
And while prospects, especially pitching prospects don't always pan out, can't we Yankee fans please have a couple of starters under the age of 36 for a change? And, more importantly, so far everything points to Hughes actually being that good.
Rostenthal floats the possibility that Hughes is overrated, based on . . . get this, a comment from a rival GM! Wow, Ken, way to dig for those unbiased sources! This "rival GM," who of course has no interest in driving Hughes' value down, said that Hughes is "only a number 3 or 4 starter." No assessment like that from any scout, or anyone with no axe to grind in either direction. Fascinating.
And since this one of those cutesy "pile on the Yankees without making it look like that's what I'm doing" sort of columns, Rosenthal makes the claim that the Red Sox have done a "much better" job of bringing along home grown talent, and cites as evidence Youklis, Pedroia, Papelbon, and Lester.
Where do I begin? OK, Cano is markedly better than Pedroia. I'll give you Youklis over Melky, but not by that much, especially since Melky can play center field. Lester? can Lester actually do something before we proclaim him any good? And as for Papelbon, he's been an outstanding closer so far, but, more than likely he will still end up a starter, and if he doens't he can't close on successive nights, severely limiting his potential impact. And who exactly was the Red Sox homegrown closer before Papelbon? So, if you want to say Papelbon you have to say Mariano. Oops!
What the Yankees need to do is resist, with all the will they can muster, the urge to get a "name" first baseman and to hold on to some of these prospects nutil at least we know what we have. Want to trade Eric Duncan? By all means do so -- he's had time to blossom and it hasn't happened. (And I'd be the first to admit the Yankees have held onto Duncan too long already.) Don't trade Philip Hughes. Not yet.
I'd hate to read Foxsports.com's "junior" writers.
I happened to read a column by Ken Rosenthal today. Rosenthal is a senior writer (ooooo!) for foxsports.com, and you may have seen/heard his stands reports during Fox Saturday telecasts.
The column I read today had as its central theme that the Yankees should trade Philip Hughes to Texas for Mark Teixiera.
Along the way Rosenthal makes some observations that are so wrong, so egregiously wrong, that I can't let them them pass without comment.
His basic premise is that we should trade Hughes because, well, prospects don't always pan out, and the Yankees need Teixiera.
Um, Ken, have you been paying any attention to the Yankees the last month or so? Offense at first base wasn't this team's problem, and certainly isn't now. The Yankees have cut Boston's lead significantly and are right there for the wild card with basically no offensive contribution from first base. And going forward they don't need other than what Cairo will give them.
And while prospects, especially pitching prospects don't always pan out, can't we Yankee fans please have a couple of starters under the age of 36 for a change? And, more importantly, so far everything points to Hughes actually being that good.
Rostenthal floats the possibility that Hughes is overrated, based on . . . get this, a comment from a rival GM! Wow, Ken, way to dig for those unbiased sources! This "rival GM," who of course has no interest in driving Hughes' value down, said that Hughes is "only a number 3 or 4 starter." No assessment like that from any scout, or anyone with no axe to grind in either direction. Fascinating.
And since this one of those cutesy "pile on the Yankees without making it look like that's what I'm doing" sort of columns, Rosenthal makes the claim that the Red Sox have done a "much better" job of bringing along home grown talent, and cites as evidence Youklis, Pedroia, Papelbon, and Lester.
Where do I begin? OK, Cano is markedly better than Pedroia. I'll give you Youklis over Melky, but not by that much, especially since Melky can play center field. Lester? can Lester actually do something before we proclaim him any good? And as for Papelbon, he's been an outstanding closer so far, but, more than likely he will still end up a starter, and if he doens't he can't close on successive nights, severely limiting his potential impact. And who exactly was the Red Sox homegrown closer before Papelbon? So, if you want to say Papelbon you have to say Mariano. Oops!
What the Yankees need to do is resist, with all the will they can muster, the urge to get a "name" first baseman and to hold on to some of these prospects nutil at least we know what we have. Want to trade Eric Duncan? By all means do so -- he's had time to blossom and it hasn't happened. (And I'd be the first to admit the Yankees have held onto Duncan too long already.) Don't trade Philip Hughes. Not yet.
I'd hate to read Foxsports.com's "junior" writers.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Justice Comes From The Strangest Place.
Orioles Fire Perlazzo
The perentially struggling Orioles fired manager Sam Perlazzo today. I have one main thought in response:
It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
A couple of years back, when Lee Mazilli was hired to manage the Orioles, he was not allowed to pick any of his own coaches. This was of course a recipe for disaster but Mazilli, anxious to get that first big-league job and thus (hopefully) get his name on the managerial treadmill going forward, took the job.
Well, as all Oriole seasons have been recently, it was a disaster, but Mazilli's tenure had the added flavor of the coaches greasing the skids, reporting every little thing back to Angelos behind Maz's back. Perlazzo was the chief skid-greaser, and just as Judas got 30 pieces of silver, Perlazzo got the manager's job when Mazilli was inevitably fired.
The 30 pieces of silver would've been a better deal. The knock on Mazilli was that he "didn't know how to use the bullpen." Well, in 2004, the one full year Mazilli managed, only one Oriole starter had an ERA under 4 and only one other had an ERA under 5. And the main guys in the bullpen, aside from BJ Ryan, were such immortals as Buddy Groom, Jorge Julio, Jason Grimsley, and John Parrish. No one was succeeding in that job, that year.
The O's problem is wqhat it's been for a decade. Angelos is where Steinbrenner was circa the mid-1980s. That is, assemble a team of big offensive names, mostly past their primes. Ignore the pitching. Act like an a-hole so that people think you're "decisive."
It doesn't matter who manages the Orioles. But Sam Perlazzo not managing them was richly deserved.
The perentially struggling Orioles fired manager Sam Perlazzo today. I have one main thought in response:
It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
A couple of years back, when Lee Mazilli was hired to manage the Orioles, he was not allowed to pick any of his own coaches. This was of course a recipe for disaster but Mazilli, anxious to get that first big-league job and thus (hopefully) get his name on the managerial treadmill going forward, took the job.
Well, as all Oriole seasons have been recently, it was a disaster, but Mazilli's tenure had the added flavor of the coaches greasing the skids, reporting every little thing back to Angelos behind Maz's back. Perlazzo was the chief skid-greaser, and just as Judas got 30 pieces of silver, Perlazzo got the manager's job when Mazilli was inevitably fired.
The 30 pieces of silver would've been a better deal. The knock on Mazilli was that he "didn't know how to use the bullpen." Well, in 2004, the one full year Mazilli managed, only one Oriole starter had an ERA under 4 and only one other had an ERA under 5. And the main guys in the bullpen, aside from BJ Ryan, were such immortals as Buddy Groom, Jorge Julio, Jason Grimsley, and John Parrish. No one was succeeding in that job, that year.
The O's problem is wqhat it's been for a decade. Angelos is where Steinbrenner was circa the mid-1980s. That is, assemble a team of big offensive names, mostly past their primes. Ignore the pitching. Act like an a-hole so that people think you're "decisive."
It doesn't matter who manages the Orioles. But Sam Perlazzo not managing them was richly deserved.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
It Figures.
Is This Over Yet?
Of course, the Mets won last night. It was too perfect. Yankees had won 9 in a row, Mets had lost 5 in a row. One team streaking, one team stinking. Too nice a setup.
So it cames as no surprise that we basically handed the game to the Mets. Oliver Perez was all over the place last night, but allowed zero runs because we kept swinging at pitches way out of the strike zone.
I am not sure that Melky, Cano, and Phelps swung at a single strike all night. One Phelps at bat in particular killed us.
First and second, both on walks, no outs. The second walk was of the four pitch variety. Phelps comes up and takes ball 1. Nice. Perez can't find the strike zone with a map. The second pitch is high and away but Phelps swings at it. Foul ball. 1-1 instead of 2-0. The whole at bat is different now, and the whole feeling of the inning. After that Perez retires not only Phelps but the next eleven (at least) guys. Coincidence? No.
And let's not forget some of the worst baserunning I've ever seen, courtesy of Matsui. After Phelps makes out without advancing the runners (of course), Cairo comes up and hits one high and deep down the line in left field. Gomez goes to the wall and catches it (not, by the way, robbing Cairo of a home run as the Mets' announcer erroneously said). Problem is, Matsui is almost to third base and is easily doubled off racing back to second.
WTF?
A ball like that, where the runner can see that the LF has time to get under the ball, ends one of two ways: catch or home run. In either case there is no "running" involved, and no reason not to be right near the base. You're either trotting home or walking back to second. Awful, awful, play.
Roger Part II was ok. Two runs in 6.1 innings should've been good enough for a win, but Roger's to blame too, for throwing too many pitches early and and anyone who gives up a home run to Jose Reyes (who hadn't had an extra-base hit in forever) should be fined on principle.
And of course, Boston won last night. San Francisco is a bad team which is getting what they deserve for 1) Bonds, and 2) signing a "Bay Area guy" who is a money guy and nothing else.
Clippard vs. Glavine today. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the newly-energized Mets win this one big, thus putting the pressure on Wang Sunday night against 62-year-old Orlando Hernandez.
Am really looking forward to the end of the "Subway Series" and to the end of dumb-ass interleague play to be over so that the actual baseball season can resume, once the circus leaves town.
Of course, the Mets won last night. It was too perfect. Yankees had won 9 in a row, Mets had lost 5 in a row. One team streaking, one team stinking. Too nice a setup.
So it cames as no surprise that we basically handed the game to the Mets. Oliver Perez was all over the place last night, but allowed zero runs because we kept swinging at pitches way out of the strike zone.
I am not sure that Melky, Cano, and Phelps swung at a single strike all night. One Phelps at bat in particular killed us.
First and second, both on walks, no outs. The second walk was of the four pitch variety. Phelps comes up and takes ball 1. Nice. Perez can't find the strike zone with a map. The second pitch is high and away but Phelps swings at it. Foul ball. 1-1 instead of 2-0. The whole at bat is different now, and the whole feeling of the inning. After that Perez retires not only Phelps but the next eleven (at least) guys. Coincidence? No.
And let's not forget some of the worst baserunning I've ever seen, courtesy of Matsui. After Phelps makes out without advancing the runners (of course), Cairo comes up and hits one high and deep down the line in left field. Gomez goes to the wall and catches it (not, by the way, robbing Cairo of a home run as the Mets' announcer erroneously said). Problem is, Matsui is almost to third base and is easily doubled off racing back to second.
WTF?
A ball like that, where the runner can see that the LF has time to get under the ball, ends one of two ways: catch or home run. In either case there is no "running" involved, and no reason not to be right near the base. You're either trotting home or walking back to second. Awful, awful, play.
Roger Part II was ok. Two runs in 6.1 innings should've been good enough for a win, but Roger's to blame too, for throwing too many pitches early and and anyone who gives up a home run to Jose Reyes (who hadn't had an extra-base hit in forever) should be fined on principle.
And of course, Boston won last night. San Francisco is a bad team which is getting what they deserve for 1) Bonds, and 2) signing a "Bay Area guy" who is a money guy and nothing else.
Clippard vs. Glavine today. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the newly-energized Mets win this one big, thus putting the pressure on Wang Sunday night against 62-year-old Orlando Hernandez.
Am really looking forward to the end of the "Subway Series" and to the end of dumb-ass interleague play to be over so that the actual baseball season can resume, once the circus leaves town.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Songs Remain The Same.
Song 1: Joe Must Go!
Seven game winning streak. Nice. But I'm not going into weather vane mode like everyone else. If Joe deserved to be fired two weeks ago (and he so did), then he deserves to be fired now (and he so does). All the things that suck about the way he manages (as I look at tonight's lineup -- Nieves catching, Posada DHing, no Melky) still suck. And still will.
Doesn't matter if we win seventeen in a row. Fire Joe, sooner, rather than later. No one else will say it now that we're temporarily playing better.
Cowards.
Song 2: The Closer You Look, The Better We Look
I happened to be in the car at lunchtime today and thus caught a little bit of Chris Russo on WFAN. Russo claims to hate the Yankees, but there's no oomph behind it, because you can't truly hate the Yankees unless you love the Mets or the Red Sox, and Russo loves neither. His shtick is being anti all the New York teams while doing a show on New York radio. I guess he feels it makes for "good radio," and after all these years the idiot fans still fall for it, so I guess it does make for good radio.
Today, Russo was downplaying the Yankees' chances . . . based on how good Cleveland and Detroit and Boston and Seattle are. The idea being that we have to many teams to get past.
And for a little extra bonus, Russo was factually wrong when he talked about how the Yankees had picked up "four games" on Boston but how Boston had righted the ship of late. Um, it's five games, loser. It was 14 1/2, now it's 9 1/2. It's a small small thing but I have to bring it up, since Russo is the ultimate hair-splitter.
Russo, please.
1. Seattle is a mediocre team, at best, currently playing as well as they possibly can. It won't last.
2. Detroit is good but not nearly as good as Russo was trying to make them. Who knows if Kenny Rogers returning is a lift, or not? Especially (presumably) if he's not cheating this year? Who's to say their bullpen gets past these injuries and just picks right up where they left off? Their lineup is pretty good, but not the Murderer's Row Russo was painting it to be. Russo procalimed that Verlander will be a "perennial 20-game winner." I almost crashed the car I laughed so hard -- could be win 20 once before you make that kind of pronouncement? Oh wait, as Russo reminded us, he also predicted that Mark Pryor would be a "perennial 20-game winner."
3. Cleveland is inconsistent on all levels and is hardly a lock to stay in the race.
4. Boston's biggest advantage right now is the size of their lead. It will be difficult for them to be caught, just based on mathematics. But Boston is hardly a flawless outfit -- their bullpen is not strong (and while Papelbon can be a dominant closer, he can't be the closer on consecutive nights, so his impact is limited by that), their lineup outside of Manny and Ortiz can be pitched to (the brief Dustin Pedroia hot streak is over already), and their starters outside of Beckett are a mixed bag -- Schilling is not the same, Wakefield, like all knuckleballers, ends up a .500 pitcher when all is said and done (and the Yankees murder him, of late), at some point Julian Tavares will wake up and realize that he actually sucks, and Dice-K thus far has benefited greatly by the Red Sox seemingly scoring 19 runs every time he pitches. Plus, I think there's a good chance that the real Beckett shows up in the second half of the season.
It definitely was fun listening to Chris Russo whistling through the graveyard today.
Seven game winning streak. Nice. But I'm not going into weather vane mode like everyone else. If Joe deserved to be fired two weeks ago (and he so did), then he deserves to be fired now (and he so does). All the things that suck about the way he manages (as I look at tonight's lineup -- Nieves catching, Posada DHing, no Melky) still suck. And still will.
Doesn't matter if we win seventeen in a row. Fire Joe, sooner, rather than later. No one else will say it now that we're temporarily playing better.
Cowards.
Song 2: The Closer You Look, The Better We Look
I happened to be in the car at lunchtime today and thus caught a little bit of Chris Russo on WFAN. Russo claims to hate the Yankees, but there's no oomph behind it, because you can't truly hate the Yankees unless you love the Mets or the Red Sox, and Russo loves neither. His shtick is being anti all the New York teams while doing a show on New York radio. I guess he feels it makes for "good radio," and after all these years the idiot fans still fall for it, so I guess it does make for good radio.
Today, Russo was downplaying the Yankees' chances . . . based on how good Cleveland and Detroit and Boston and Seattle are. The idea being that we have to many teams to get past.
And for a little extra bonus, Russo was factually wrong when he talked about how the Yankees had picked up "four games" on Boston but how Boston had righted the ship of late. Um, it's five games, loser. It was 14 1/2, now it's 9 1/2. It's a small small thing but I have to bring it up, since Russo is the ultimate hair-splitter.
Russo, please.
1. Seattle is a mediocre team, at best, currently playing as well as they possibly can. It won't last.
2. Detroit is good but not nearly as good as Russo was trying to make them. Who knows if Kenny Rogers returning is a lift, or not? Especially (presumably) if he's not cheating this year? Who's to say their bullpen gets past these injuries and just picks right up where they left off? Their lineup is pretty good, but not the Murderer's Row Russo was painting it to be. Russo procalimed that Verlander will be a "perennial 20-game winner." I almost crashed the car I laughed so hard -- could be win 20 once before you make that kind of pronouncement? Oh wait, as Russo reminded us, he also predicted that Mark Pryor would be a "perennial 20-game winner."
3. Cleveland is inconsistent on all levels and is hardly a lock to stay in the race.
4. Boston's biggest advantage right now is the size of their lead. It will be difficult for them to be caught, just based on mathematics. But Boston is hardly a flawless outfit -- their bullpen is not strong (and while Papelbon can be a dominant closer, he can't be the closer on consecutive nights, so his impact is limited by that), their lineup outside of Manny and Ortiz can be pitched to (the brief Dustin Pedroia hot streak is over already), and their starters outside of Beckett are a mixed bag -- Schilling is not the same, Wakefield, like all knuckleballers, ends up a .500 pitcher when all is said and done (and the Yankees murder him, of late), at some point Julian Tavares will wake up and realize that he actually sucks, and Dice-K thus far has benefited greatly by the Red Sox seemingly scoring 19 runs every time he pitches. Plus, I think there's a good chance that the real Beckett shows up in the second half of the season.
It definitely was fun listening to Chris Russo whistling through the graveyard today.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Stick A Fork In Me.
The Good, The Bad, and The Very Very Ugly
Two out of three in Boston. "Win Series" the mantra goes. Well we won the series. But why does it feel so rotten right now?
Could it be because Mike Mussina once again showed why I've nicknamed him "Goldfish Guts?"
Could it be because Joe can't shake his Scott Proctor fixation, used Proctor when he had no business doing so Saturday and pretty much wrote a new chapter of "How Not To Manage" in the seventh inning on Saturday?
Could it be because after Sunday night's thrilling win, we came out flatter than a pancake last night against a subpar Garland and overall a very beatable White Sox team?
Could be it because we are carrying a ridiculous 13 pitchers when Joe only uses 9 anyway?
I can't drag myself through all of it, in detail, so I'll settle for some quick hits.
1. Did Matt DeSalvo insult Joe Torre's family or something? How else to explain Torre pulling him after 1.1 innings last night? OK, DeSalvo was NOT pitching well, granted, but what goes through Torre's mind to convince him that attempting to get 7 2/3 out of the pen is a good idea, and in the best interests of the team overall?
Taking DeSalvo out in the second inning was a brutally dumb move.
2. I felt so good for A Rod Sunday night. After the week he'd had -- the New York Post's unfortunate foray into investigative journalism, the brouhaha over the play in Toronto, to end the series like that was an amazing moment. A Rod will hit his 500th home run this year. I hope he's in pinstripes for numbers 600, 700, and 800.
3. What exactly crawled up Tim McCarver's ass on Saturday? I know that the Fox story line obviously is the once-mighty Yankees, now pedestrian and struggling, but Tim really went over the top a few times.
a. Applauding Mike Lowell running over Robinson Cano. Not only praising Lowell excessively but also attempting to say that Lowell's play was perfectly legit while A Rod's play on Dustin Pedroia in the previous series between the two teams was dirty. Even mega-shill Joe Buck couldn't let that pass without (gently) putting McCarver in his place.
Bottom line: Lowell used excessive force, and had there not been all the nonsense with guys getting thrown at the night before, I'd hope that a Yankee pitcher would've stuck one in Lowell's ribs.
b. In Boston's big inning, A Rod made a mistake, not being on third, leaving Melky who might have had a play there, with no one to throw to. McCarver went nuts . . . using the words "Keystone Kops" and saying "the Yankees have had some bad innings this year but this is the worst yet!"
Tim . . . other than Yankee games you've worked, exactly how many innings of the Yankees have you watched this season? Any? How exactly would you know that that inning was the worst?
A totally irresponsible statement from a first-class bandwagon jumper. Disgraceful. And yet Fox retains him, year after year.
Three is all I can muster. Stick a fork in me. I'm done.
Two out of three in Boston. "Win Series" the mantra goes. Well we won the series. But why does it feel so rotten right now?
Could it be because Mike Mussina once again showed why I've nicknamed him "Goldfish Guts?"
Could it be because Joe can't shake his Scott Proctor fixation, used Proctor when he had no business doing so Saturday and pretty much wrote a new chapter of "How Not To Manage" in the seventh inning on Saturday?
Could it be because after Sunday night's thrilling win, we came out flatter than a pancake last night against a subpar Garland and overall a very beatable White Sox team?
Could be it because we are carrying a ridiculous 13 pitchers when Joe only uses 9 anyway?
I can't drag myself through all of it, in detail, so I'll settle for some quick hits.
1. Did Matt DeSalvo insult Joe Torre's family or something? How else to explain Torre pulling him after 1.1 innings last night? OK, DeSalvo was NOT pitching well, granted, but what goes through Torre's mind to convince him that attempting to get 7 2/3 out of the pen is a good idea, and in the best interests of the team overall?
Taking DeSalvo out in the second inning was a brutally dumb move.
2. I felt so good for A Rod Sunday night. After the week he'd had -- the New York Post's unfortunate foray into investigative journalism, the brouhaha over the play in Toronto, to end the series like that was an amazing moment. A Rod will hit his 500th home run this year. I hope he's in pinstripes for numbers 600, 700, and 800.
3. What exactly crawled up Tim McCarver's ass on Saturday? I know that the Fox story line obviously is the once-mighty Yankees, now pedestrian and struggling, but Tim really went over the top a few times.
a. Applauding Mike Lowell running over Robinson Cano. Not only praising Lowell excessively but also attempting to say that Lowell's play was perfectly legit while A Rod's play on Dustin Pedroia in the previous series between the two teams was dirty. Even mega-shill Joe Buck couldn't let that pass without (gently) putting McCarver in his place.
Bottom line: Lowell used excessive force, and had there not been all the nonsense with guys getting thrown at the night before, I'd hope that a Yankee pitcher would've stuck one in Lowell's ribs.
b. In Boston's big inning, A Rod made a mistake, not being on third, leaving Melky who might have had a play there, with no one to throw to. McCarver went nuts . . . using the words "Keystone Kops" and saying "the Yankees have had some bad innings this year but this is the worst yet!"
Tim . . . other than Yankee games you've worked, exactly how many innings of the Yankees have you watched this season? Any? How exactly would you know that that inning was the worst?
A totally irresponsible statement from a first-class bandwagon jumper. Disgraceful. And yet Fox retains him, year after year.
Three is all I can muster. Stick a fork in me. I'm done.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Memo To Everyone, Part 2: Shut Up Shuttin' Up.
Up And In
And here we go again. Last night, in hte ninth inning with the Yankees way ahead andTy Cobb Kevin Youklis up, Scott Proctor threw one way up and way in. Youklis made a move towards the mound, the benches and bullpen emptied and there was all that testsoterone-fueled milling around and glaring at each other.
Cute.
But ridiculous.
The score was 9-3, Yankees. Bottom of the ninth, one out. All Proctor wanted to do was get two outs and get out of there. Yes, there had been some guys hit in the course of the game. But none of them looked particularly intentional and none of them were up high. There was no bad blood going in this game. Proctor was trying to pitch inside and it got away.
But whenever a pitch goes up and in rationality goes right out the window. Yankees' announcer Michael Kay even acted like it was intentional on Proctor's part. "Why on earth would Scott Proctor DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that?!!!?!??!?" And Ken Singleton, who played the game, who knows it wasn't intentional, just sits there, instead of saying, "Michael, you stupid snot, have you learned nothing in all your years of watching baseball?"
After the game Kay tried to sound semi-rational, saying "IF it was intentional. . . . " Too late. Either you know it's not intentional and you say that, or you go along with the sexy story line. Post-facto backpedaling makes Kay look even more lame (which isn't easy).
And it makes wonderful talk-radio fodder. Chris Russo on WFAN said this morning that Scott Proctor "has good control." What? Do you watch any games, you weasel? Proctor is always walking guys at the worst possible time. 13 walks in 26 innings. Not "good" control. But of course if Proctor doesn't have good control that blows the whole "Proctor did it on purpose" story line.
Everyone, please shut up. Please.
Fox, today, and ESPN, tomorrow night, will have a field day with this of course. Won't it be fun to hear the opinions of Joe Buck, Tim McCarver, John Miller and Joe Morgan on this?
I may have to watch this weekend's games with the sound off.
And here we go again. Last night, in hte ninth inning with the Yankees way ahead and
Cute.
But ridiculous.
The score was 9-3, Yankees. Bottom of the ninth, one out. All Proctor wanted to do was get two outs and get out of there. Yes, there had been some guys hit in the course of the game. But none of them looked particularly intentional and none of them were up high. There was no bad blood going in this game. Proctor was trying to pitch inside and it got away.
But whenever a pitch goes up and in rationality goes right out the window. Yankees' announcer Michael Kay even acted like it was intentional on Proctor's part. "Why on earth would Scott Proctor DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that?!!!?!??!?" And Ken Singleton, who played the game, who knows it wasn't intentional, just sits there, instead of saying, "Michael, you stupid snot, have you learned nothing in all your years of watching baseball?"
After the game Kay tried to sound semi-rational, saying "IF it was intentional. . . . " Too late. Either you know it's not intentional and you say that, or you go along with the sexy story line. Post-facto backpedaling makes Kay look even more lame (which isn't easy).
And it makes wonderful talk-radio fodder. Chris Russo on WFAN said this morning that Scott Proctor "has good control." What? Do you watch any games, you weasel? Proctor is always walking guys at the worst possible time. 13 walks in 26 innings. Not "good" control. But of course if Proctor doesn't have good control that blows the whole "Proctor did it on purpose" story line.
Everyone, please shut up. Please.
Fox, today, and ESPN, tomorrow night, will have a field day with this of course. Won't it be fun to hear the opinions of Joe Buck, Tim McCarver, John Miller and Joe Morgan on this?
I may have to watch this weekend's games with the sound off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
