The Bugs win 2-1 in Eleven innings and defeat the Yanks
Quickly. I'm waiting to hear Torre explain what the hell happened. I'll update this post in a few minutes....
I've never seen anything like this before in my life. A hoard of pestilence descended upon Cleveland stadium and attacked Joba Chamberlain while he was trying to pitch the eighth inning with the Yanks winning 1-0 in an all time classic playoff game. Joba, who came in with two on and one out in the bottom of the seventh dominated the Indians with an unbelievable slider and fastball and picked up an equally incredible Andy Pettitte to leave Cleveland scratching their heads and the Yanks clinging onto that one run lead going to the eighth. Then came " The Swarm."
They had to stop the game while every player and umpire was being sprayed with bug repellent so they could try and play the game of baseball. I don't know the rules, but Torre or the umps should have removed the players from the field until the Canadian Soldiers died down. It was ridiculous. That wasn't baseball. Chamberlain was covered with them as he tried to concentrate on the Cleveland hitters. The flies were crawling up his nose, in his ears, in his mouth, in his eyes...covered his neck as he quickly walked walked Grady Sizemore. While batting the bugs, he then threw two wild pitches which scored the tying run without a hit.
That was like a hail storm or blizzard. Where was Major League baseball? What the heck were the umpires doing. I'll back back in a few...
[editor's note, by John Amato] Joel Sherman asked Torre if they ever thought about stopping the game until the bugs went away and Joe waffled. Torre said he never saw anything like it. He said that he told the umps he was worried that the kid couldn't see. The umps did nothing. He said that Joba didn't lose his composure and they played on.
Carmona was awesome and the Yankee bats went to sleep again. Viz was horrible and lost the game because as usual, he walks people. Posada makes an error on dropping a third strike to Grady Sizemore and then threw the ball over Manky's head to put him first with no outs in the tenth. That made Mariano waste a bunch of pitches that he could have used for a third inning of work if Joe decided to go that route. Man, what a mess...
[editor's note, by John Amato]The have stopped play in Jacobs field before because of "bugs." ESPN:
0 recs |
67
comments
Comments
It's over
When you only have 2 reliable relievers in the 'pen (bugs notwithstanding), it's difficult to last longer than a few innings into extras. That's what happened tonight.
Unless the Yankees start hitting, they are going to lose this series in New York. And the A-Rod questions are valid, IMO - he's gone ice-cold again. Yes, there is good pitching, but he is the best hitter in the game.
by PsiFighter37 on Oct 5, 2007 11:07 PM EDT 0 recs
Pitching, pitching, pitching
I think we could trade Matsui for Johan Santana in the offseason. Matsui's a great player when healthy, but with the way Damon's been playing left, and with Giambi not going anywhere, he's not indispensable.
From Minnesota's standpoint, Matsui would be a huge upgrade for them over Jason Kubel. Santana's not happy there and is looking for a trade. We'd finally have a bonafide ace, and then either Kennedy could be the long man/spot starter for a year or Joba could stay in the pen. That, plus bolstering our bullpen, and we'd finally have a real championship-caliber team.
I know it's bad form to talk about the offseason during the playoffs, but thoughts?
by DocBrown82 on Oct 5, 2007 11:20 PM EDT 0 recs
Is it?
Explain to me why this is "ridiculous."
by DocBrown82 on
Oct 5, 2007 11:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
My god.
Matsui for Johan??? Are you kidding me? For one, Johan commanders MUCH more in trade value than one washed up left handed power hitter. Second, Minnesota is a small market club, and will require a large package of prospects (especially pitching)...not a veteran such as matsui with an overpriced contract...At the very least, they would probably ask for ian kennedy, phil hughes, and joba the hutt.
by joemeister on
Oct 5, 2007 11:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
All three of them?
Nonetheless, thanks for actually engaging my crazy idea.
I do think something else would have to be thrown in for a trade like that to work--just not sure what. Not that familiar with what we have in the way of prospects.
Matsui is not that old and hardly washed up. I think his trade value is greater than you're giving him credit for.
So what are your ideas for improving our pitching this offseason? That was the best I could come up with. And what are other teams likely to offer for Santana? Educate me.
by DocBrown82 on
Oct 6, 2007 12:07 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Matsui also has a no-trade clause
by DocBrown82 on
Oct 6, 2007 12:11 AM EDT
up
0 recs
A package would likely start with
by pfistyunc on
Oct 6, 2007 11:20 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Now there is something we can agree on
by pfistyunc on
Oct 6, 2007 11:17 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Wake up
Get down on the team, I am, but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't baseball for that inning. So Carmona handled it better...he shouldn't have had to either.
by John Amato on Oct 5, 2007 11:39 PM EDT 0 recs
Weak excuse
by pfistyunc on
Oct 6, 2007 11:21 AM EDT
up
0 recs
is it weak?
do you think the yankees would have won if there were no bugs? if yes, then it can't be a weak excuse. Personally, I think they would have won.
by stillmonster on
Oct 6, 2007 11:55 AM EDT
up
0 recs
From what I saw
by pfistyunc on
Oct 6, 2007 11:58 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Very true
After Peralta's ball didn't go out I thought it was the Yankees night. I can't fuckin believe bugs are part of the reason they lost that stupid game.
by matthaggs on
Oct 6, 2007 12:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Further
I guess what I'm saying is that while the bugs were there while others were pitching, no one had to deal with them at the level that Joba did. It was like pitching through driving rain.
The Yanks have had plenty of weird things go their way over the years during the playoffs, so its hard to complain about this, but without those damn bugs the Yanks are headed home 1-1 with an excellent chance to advance.
Crap.
by matthaggs on
Oct 6, 2007 3:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What Time Is It?
by tribetimenow on Oct 5, 2007 11:45 PM EDT 0 recs
My take...
Stop making excuses for bad play.
by AdverbHarry on Oct 5, 2007 11:49 PM EDT 0 recs
Hm, that poll on the front page...
by joemeister on
Oct 5, 2007 11:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
We didn't lose that game
Nay, we lost because we had no one better than Luis Vizcaino to send out in the 11th. If we had, eventually the Tribe would have had to bring in Borowski, a mediocre closer off whom I am confident our offense could have done something.
by DocBrown82 on
Oct 5, 2007 11:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
No, the tribes bullpen is that good.
by joemeister on
Oct 5, 2007 11:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
they had
by joemeister on
Oct 6, 2007 1:24 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Matsui/Santana?
by mickey07 on Oct 5, 2007 11:56 PM EDT 0 recs
you didn't reply to him.
by joemeister on
Oct 5, 2007 11:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And to top it off
by PsiFighter37 on Oct 6, 2007 1:12 AM EDT 0 recs
How much worse is October going to be
by pfistyunc on
Oct 6, 2007 11:22 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Sigh
by PsiFighter37 on Oct 6, 2007 1:31 AM EDT 0 recs
Wow...pathetic
Look, you guys got beat by a better team...Superman, according to the chain smokin' Michael Kay, Chamberlain got beat...deal with it. Not happening this year...Cleveland probably wins...God you are a bunch of cry babies,,,why don't you worry about your 0-8 AROD?!?!?
by cblesz on Oct 6, 2007 1:31 AM EDT 0 recs
Hypocrisy
- You were wailing at the end of August the Sox were done and wouldn't even make the post season and you have the gall to say any other fans cry babies?! How can you possibly call out Yanks fans for being upset about something which as NOTHING to do with baseball derailing a close game?
- Did you watch the eigth inning? Chamberlin was really good until the bugs came...he had 30 or more crawling on his neck at the bottom of the eigth. The game should have been stopped as there is no doubt that it was impossibe to play. If that were your team you'd be pissed as hell that they didn't.
- I've posted on tons of other baseball sites this past season and the Angels fans at Halos Heaven are a uniquely negative and stupid bunch. Posters at PSA are a paragon of civilized composure and rationality compared to that bunch. They're total muppets over there.
Okay...rant over.
by B Cap on
Oct 6, 2007 4:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Bug Spray Doesn't Always Work
I was a block away from the stadium tonight...no bugs anywhere. It is ridiculous to say Cleveland is a dirty city (it's quite clean) just as it is ridiculous to say New York is a dirty city--considering how many people live in NYC I find it to be quite clean whenever I go there.
Bugs are attracted to moisture and light. These "Canadian soldiers" hatch two or three times a year, usually in May-June-July. They live only a couple of days. Usually they're only a factor near the lake, and Jacobs field is about two miles away from the water. Sweaty baseball players playing under bright lights...no surprise, right? Anyway, if you want to blame anything, blame global warming. It's not supposed to be 85 here in October, period. The bugs don't live unless it's that warm.
Secondly, many people don't seem to realize that if you're already sweating profusely, putting OFF! on does absolutely no good; in fact, it usually attracts MORE bugs. Joba bathed in that crap and that's why they were sticking to his neck. It looked like he put more on than anyone else and had the worst problems with them.
Bugs aren't the reason you're down 2-0, though.
I think most of you know that.
by timebonus on Oct 6, 2007 2:39 AM EDT 0 recs
Those damn bugs
However, in this case, I don't see how you can not blame those stupid ass things for last night's loss. Joba came into the 7th inning of last night's game and was lights out in getting the final two outs while no bugs were attacking him.
He then comes out the next inning with this swarm around his head and he then walks the leadoff hitter on 4 pitches in addition to falling behind every hitter, allowing another walk, and two wild pitches in the inning.
This coming from a guy who had zero control issues all season and allowed exactly 6 walks in 24 IP at the end of the regular season.
Sorry, it's not a coincidence. I have never seen anything like that and it's a damn shame they are now in an 0-2 hole because of something completely insane and out of their control.
by anaconda on
Oct 6, 2007 9:15 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Legit Gripe, but...
If the trainers made that decision to spray, it was a bad one. Gotta put that stuff on when you're still dry, otherwise it works like an adhesive.
I am sure that the Yankees offense will wake up in Game 3. I have little confidence in Westbook and Byrd. But I think Cleveland will prevail because we don't have to win in New York now.
by timebonus on
Oct 6, 2007 12:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
re
- You didn't lose the game in the 8th. You only gave up the lead. You lost the game in the 11th. Blame your bullpen, and your "MVP" who continues to strike out in October.
- Two words: Jeffrey Maier. Human intervention, not some random act of nature. Clearly a catchable ball, clearly fan interference. Yet he was given the key to the city by Giuliani and appeared on Letterman the following night. So you don't get to say nuthin' about what's fair.
--signed, a denizen of Camden Chat
by zknower on
Oct 6, 2007 4:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
While I agree
The evidence is clear by the picture you posted that it would have hit the top of the wall.
Sorry it is a pet peeve of mine.
by bronxbound on
Oct 6, 2007 4:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
sorry it's your pet peeve
First of all, the ball is already below the top of the wall in the picture. So it either hits the front of the wall or lands in the glove.
Arguing whether or not it would have actually been caught is pointless. Tarasco was a (somewhat) decent right fielder, who drifted over to the wall and was in place well before the catch. His positioning was perfect; replays showed he was lined up and waiting for the ball. From the blur in the picture above, it appears to me the ball is headed straight for the glove (it was not a line-drive type home run, more of a fly-ball type). I think he catches it.
Whatever happens, Jeter doesn't get a home run. Maybe he gets a double; and then maybe the next guy strikes out or he hits a dinger and wins the game....who knows? It hardly matters, as the Orioles won the next game and then lost three straight.
But there's no way to know if the catch would or wouldn't have been made, and my point is, I don't have a lot of patience for Yankee fans complaining about bugs.
by zknower on
Oct 6, 2007 6:14 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It was the trainers and not Joba making that call.
by John Amato on Oct 6, 2007 3:08 AM EDT 0 recs
You know what the worst of it was?
by mrljdavid on Oct 6, 2007 6:49 AM EDT 0 recs
200+ million payroll
by AdverbHarry on Oct 6, 2007 2:13 PM EDT 0 recs
Can't keep winning on reputation
I loved our Indians teams of the late 90's, but they never had the pitching to win it all. For some reason, the Yankees got away from what won them 4 titles in 6 years and emulated those Indians teams--great lineup, suspect pitching. The 1996-2000 Yankees teams probably would have found a way to win last night's game.
Only one reliable starter and two excellent relievers won't scare anyone in postseason play. The lineup can mash, but last night you saw what good pitching will do to fearsome hitters.
I don't really follow the Yanks that much (I get enough peripheral coverage on them anyway) but I am curious as to whether their fans agree with me or if they think this team, as it is, is good enough to win it all?
I don't like the Yankees nor the the Red Sox, but for me it's not about beating them, it's about winning the whole thing. And if we get past them and don't do that, I won't feel very good.
by timebonus on
Oct 6, 2007 3:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Don't know if you've been paying attention
Is the team good enough to win it all? On days they're playing well, sure. They certainly have the talent, though our soft spot is the bullpen (same goes for the Red Sox and Angels as of late.) If we go on a tear, starting tomorrow night, I think we could at least get to a WS. I'm not counting my team out yet.
by docgonzo on
Oct 6, 2007 4:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
paying attention?
What? your current roster has three starting pitchers over the age of 40, one of whom you picked up for a contract that is higher than the Florida Marlins' entire payroll. All of them have ERAs over 4.00. Your bullpen is just one of your soft spots. In a few years when you've got more Wangs and Hugheses and fewer Clemenses and Pettittes, then we'll talk.
The only reason you made the postseason this year is that you get to feast on weak Baltimore and Tampa Bay hitters for 38 games a year (nearly 1/4 of your schedule). Against solid teams, the Yankees have no chance at all until they get real starting pitching.
by zknower on
Oct 6, 2007 4:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Actually
There was one team they went 6-0 against though.
by matthaggs on
Oct 6, 2007 4:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Three over 40?
Next year, the rotation will probably be: Wang, Pettitte, Hughes, Joba and Mussina. Hopefully the last guy retires or gets hurt (I'm bad, I know), opening the door for Ian Kennedy. That would make three young, talented guns, one in his prime and the other an aging, but effective veteran. Permission to talk now, asshole?
by docgonzo on
Oct 6, 2007 4:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
jackass
You wrote:
our GM has shifted focus from taking on aging stars to calling up the kids.
While I was obviously mistaken about Mussina and Pettitte being over 40 (I guess they just look that old), the point remains: they are clearly "aging stars", not called-up kids.
Next year is next year. The thread is about this year's team, and this year's team does not "certainly have the talent" (as you posted above) when it comes to starting pitching.
Your offense is what got you where you are this year. Your must-win game tomorrow is being thrown by a guy who hasn't pitched in three weeks! Face the facts. The Yankees of 2007 just aren't that good. Good enough to hit their way to the wild card? Yes. But to compete against baseball's best lineups? No.
by zknower on
Oct 6, 2007 6:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Actually
Saying that this team does not have talent is utterly retarded. Of course they have talent - they wouldn't be in the post season otherwise. Whether or not that talent gets used consistently and to its fullest potential is certainly open for debate. And I'd argue that it doesn't.
If your team beats us, fine. That's their fault, not mine. But don't come over here looking to give us shit, then act all offended when someone calls you out for being the asshole you obviously are.
by docgonzo on
Oct 6, 2007 7:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sort of
Coming over here at this point of the season, saying what you said doesn't make you an asshole. It makes you a troll. That's far worse.
by jscape2000 on
Oct 7, 2007 1:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
not a troll
I really didn't expect such sensitivity here. Doc Brown has the third comment on the thread, in which he says:
So he can say it, but I can't?
I didn't come over here and say, "Ahaaa suckers, you lost! Yankees suck!" I came over to join the discussion, and the discussion when I joined was about pitching (and also bugs--I find the notion that the bugs "lost" the game for the Yankees to be a weak excuse).
If you consider that trolling then I'll pack my tent and go. But I don't really think I've crossed a line here.
by zknower on
Oct 7, 2007 1:53 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I understand
But you responded to Docgonzo's response to timebonus as though you had written it. And in your response you made some factual errors (only Clemens is over 40; we played poorly against the weak teams in our division but won the season series with the Red Sox and the Indians, and played even against the Mariners and Tigers; Pettitte and Clemens' ERAs while over 4 are 4.05 and 4.18 in a season when league average is 4.33).
What DocBrown is true. Much of what you said is either false or misleading. I don't think it warrants name calling, but at this point of the season you've got to understand how it looks to us...
Like I said, you're welcome here and I hope we see more of you. But we're a lively bunch (to say the least). You have to be ready to back up what you say and admit if you misspeak.
by jscape2000 on
Oct 7, 2007 2:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I knew I forgot one
by jscape2000 on
Oct 7, 2007 2:32 AM EDT
up
0 recs
All good points...
I obviously exaggerated in some of the things I said, but did so in the framework of rhetorical argument. Saying "you have 3 guys over 40" to me is akin to saying, "if we don't drop Mussina from the roster, we're going to lose 162 games next year". No one actually thinks you'll go winless, it's just obvious the writer is passionate about not keeping poor old Moose. So having the discussion be about, "you said over 40, YOU SAID OVER 40" and ignoring the reason I said it is what I think is a little silly. And I did retract/clarify the "over 40 comment" immediately after it was pointed out...
All that said, your response above is exactly what was needed.
- the fact that you played poorly against TB and Baltimore is an excellent point...now that I take a closer look at the schedule I see that it's true. I'm surprised, but it's definitely true, and I was wrong. In most years, you totally smoke us. If Docgonzo had made this point above, I'd have retracted as well. I'm not to proud to admit when I make a mistake
- Pettitte's and Clemens' ERAs being a little better than league average makes my point for me: league average pitching is not enough in a short series against a playoff team (not a league-average team); if the Yankees are to pull it out, they will need to rely on what got them to the dance, which was firepower, not pitching
- and the payroll comment you make below is, to me, another case of splitting hairs; it was another exaggeration on my part,in the sense that I could have written "roughly equivalent" to the Florida Marlins' entire payroll, but instead, caught up in typing, I wrote "higher than"...such embellishments creep into the speech of NYers who argue every day, but I guess you're saying there's no place for them on something as literal as a blog. So I will watch exactly what I say much more closely, but the argument that your GM paid a lot for mediocre pitching still stands, and I wish that that was what was being discussed
by zknower on
Oct 7, 2007 11:05 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I should clear up a couple things for you
Your point on Clemens is well taken, but only in retrospect. We certainly had starting pitching problems early in the year, but by no means did that have anything to do with age.
Carl Pavano - who should be in his prime - simply can't avoid getting hurt; Kei Igawa simply sucks; Wang went down with an injury, as did Mussina. When Wang and Mussina went down, we used Rasner and Karstens, both of whom also went down to injury.
Then we called up Matt DeSalvo, but he blew chunks (remember four HRs in Boston?) That's when we went to Clemens, who had good years in Houston, so it was a reasonable gamble to take, especially in light of the mass injuries to our starters.
Don't forget Hughes was called up very early in the year and may well have made the post-season roster as a starter if he didn't pull a hamstring and twist an ankle. He might have pitched much better in the regular than he did.
Though Pettitte's ERA is over 4 (and that's because of two bad outings his last two starts, otherwise it would have been below 4), he pitched great in game 2. I'll take Andy any day in a big game, over 4 ERA or not. Most here would agree with me on that.
It remains to be seen how Clemens will do. Never underestimate someone like that - he may be old and way past his prime, but you never know when he'll be able to pull out some magic one more time. And he knows this could very well be the last start of his career - he'll pull out all the stops even if his arm falls off. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm sure I've missed several other points you've made. Can't get to them all at the moment....
by docgonzo on
Oct 7, 2007 11:26 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Four homers in Fenway
by pfistyunc on
Oct 7, 2007 11:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Thanks
by docgonzo on
Oct 7, 2007 11:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
now we're talking!
i'm the first one to say you guys have had hard luck with pitching this year, particularly with injuries. and i agree with you that pettitte is your best big-game pitcher right now. furthermore, i wouldn't be surprised if rocket guts out a dominant performance today. he's certainly been known to before. but i also wouldn't be surprised if he's gone by the 4th inning.
to me, the yankee rotation at the beginning of the year looked shaky. Pavano, Pettitte, Mussina, Igawa, and I forget who the fifth was: Karstens? Rasner? i figured pavano would continue to suck, but i also figured wang would come back and be serviceable to good. pettitte and mussina were crapshoots. both are clearly in their waning years; pettitte has been a pleasant surprise, after his injury year in houston in '04- he actually had a better era this year than last despite pitching in the AL again. and i love moose, but you knew that sooner or later his body would start to betray him. that it happened this year is not a huge surprise.
signing rocket was a bad move "in retrospect"? no, i think a lot of folks around baseball thought the rocket signing was a little insane, given that he had been in the NL for a few years, and rarely went past 6 innings, and hadn't even pitched for half the year. given all the injuries you guys sustained, i'm not saying cashman was wrong to do something. but the point you were arguing was that he was "going for youth" this year, and while it's true with joba and hughes, the rocket signing was a direct contradiction to that. if cashman looked a little harder and/or had been a little more creative, i imagine he could have gotten roger's 6 victories from somewhere else, at a far cheaper price. the $28M seemed like something of a wildly optimistic expectation, fueled by headlines of clemens being a savior of new york's season.
all in all, i'm just saying that i don't think anyone can argue that the yankees have ever had consistently dominant starting pitching this year.
when your rotation has joba and hughes in it regularly, it's going to be killer. wang is going to be at least average-to-good for a few years. the clock has run out on moose. pettitte? i'd be surprised if he comes back next season, but if he does, i wouldn't expect his numbers to stay on a par with this year's. getting some youth into your back end should be cashman's next priority. by "youth" i don't mean rookies, i mean an established veteran in his late 20s/early 30s.
by zknower on
Oct 7, 2007 12:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wow, you're really hurting, aren't you?
But I like baseball, and in the postseason, I follow all the teams. And occasionally chat with other baseball fans about the games even. Go figure! Gee, is America great, or what? Sorry if you don't like hearing my opinions, but that's not my problem.
You set up a strawman by continuing to say I "don't know what I'm talking about with your starting pitching" solely because I said three guys were over 40. I was wrong about their ages--big deal. I admitted that as soon as you called me on it.
The rest of my points, which you refuse to acknowledge, were dead on: that three of your starters are aging, by baseball standards, and that they have ERAs over 4.00, and that doesn't bode well for your postseason. My further point was that in the middle of this season, you signed one of these guys for a lot of money, which speaks to what your front office's strategy is. My final point was that while your future rotation looks rosy, your rotation for the playoffs does not.
Those are all valid points which you chose to ignore. Which is kind of silly, since the current poll on this site is querying who you guys should start for Game 4 (BTW, it will be Wang if you get to Game 4, per the Sportsline today). Obviously, based on the poll and other discussions on the site, many of your brethren here don't share your faith in the front four.
You instead talk about Joba and Hughes. I'm not ignoring Joba and Hughes, who are clearly talented: rather, I'm pointing out that they're not starting any of these playoff games for you!
I never said the team didn't have talent. I said they don't "certainly have the talent" when it comes to starting pitching. Again, you choose to mischaracterize this as a knock on the whole team.
I have a right to discuss the merits of the Yankees in the postseason as much as anyone else here. First Amendment, right? You're the one who felt a need to start name-calling by referring to me as an asshole upthread. Whatever's bringing out the hostility from you didn't come my attitude. There are plenty of Cleveland fans up thread joining in the discussion upthread, and you're not accusing them of "coming over here to start shit".
So, please, chill the fuck out, and let's get back to discussing the bugs, or whatever. The Yankees are talented. Their future starters are talented. There current older starters, not so much for the playoff environment. Those are my points. Attack them if you want, but please don't attack me.
by zknower on
Oct 7, 2007 1:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
The Cardinal Sin
by B Cap on
Oct 7, 2007 6:26 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Very well said
by pfistyunc on
Oct 7, 2007 7:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
to B Cap and
I have posted my mea culpa above. My overall point is that rhetorical exaggeration and being misleading are not the same thing, but that I will be much more careful with my stats from now on.
Thanks for weighing in. :)
by zknower on
Oct 7, 2007 11:14 AM EDT
up
0 recs
You weren't guilty of
What? your current roster has three starting pitchers over the age of 40
Wrong on this, and the spirit of the comment was wrong too, as the GM has indeed made a significant change in direction. The current rotation is a patchwork rotation driven by injuries, as gonzo points out above.
Your bullpen is just one of your soft spots.
What are the others?
In a few years when you've got more Wangs and Hugheses and fewer Clemenses and Pettittes, then we'll talk.
How about next year?
The only reason you made the postseason this year is that you get to feast on weak Baltimore and Tampa Bay hitters for 38 games a year
Wrong on this.
by LateInningRelief on
Oct 7, 2007 11:55 AM EDT
up
0 recs
re:
Please stop beating the "over 40" comment. I've retracted it twice above.
The "spirit" of the comment is not wrong. We were talking about your postseason starting rotation, not callups who are sitting in the bullpen. The starting rotation is comparatively old. And calling up kids is not a "significant change in direction" if you still go out and sign Roger Clemens midseason. The Yankees have "called up kids" in the past (see Wang). But they have also always supplemented those call ups by cherry-picking expensive established star veterans (see Pavano, R. Johnson). Injuries are a part of the game. Other teams deal with them differently.
What are the others?
Your starting rotation. This whole thread is about my thinking it's a soft spot.
How about next year?
Next year remains to be seen what you guys do, doesn't it? Wang will be reliable. Joba may work out as a starter--or not. Hughes has the goods and I think will be a solid starter for years to come. So you have two, maybe 3 spots set. After that, all bets are off. Pettitte may retire, and if he doesn't I would still expect his numbers to slip given his age. This year was impressive, but his his most recent 3-4 years don't point to him repeating it. Moose could rebound or could slip further down the hill. If Cashman looks in the offseason and doesn't buy another aging veteran and promoted Kennedy instead, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Wrong on this.
Yup, I admitted that above, as well. Most years, you feast on us and TB; this year you didn't. I should have looked it up.
by zknower on
Oct 7, 2007 1:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Keeping farmhands
by pfistyunc on
Oct 7, 2007 2:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yes, but
by zknower on
Oct 7, 2007 4:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs


