In the below post, I forgot to make fun of Jose Albaladejo's pitiful K/BB ratio (currently 1.33).
More like Jose "All Balls All Day-O!"
buh-ZING!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen, the unfounded panic begins!
Pardon me while I play devil's advocate, since the unfounded panic among Yankee fans seems to have reached ridiculous levels. (Come talk to me when the Red Sox aren't on an 11-game winning streak and maybe I'll be less forgiving.) Anyways...
THE YANKEES AREN'T TOUGH ANYMORE, by one panicked John Harper. (Yes this has been torn apart by several bloggers already. But that doesn't stop it from being insane.)
In the end, the steal of home was more than an embarrassing punctuation mark to a sweep at the hands of the Red Sox that was full of heartbreak and exasperation.
For the Yankees, it was symbolic of a weekend in which they were beaten in the cruelest of ways, three losses that leave you wondering if they are as tough as the Red Sox anymore. Is it possible that years of first-round playoff exits and then an empty October in 2008 have stolen whatever grit remained from the Joe Torre glory years?
Yes, it is possible. If that grit was still around it would mean someone never cleaned old Yankee Stadium, and their dirty standards are being kept up in the new place and...ew. Just...ew. Housekeeping aside...
You could surely make the case after the Red Sox seemed to will themselves to comeback victories on Friday and Saturday, and then the Yankees Sunday night looked like a team that had had the fight taken out of them by those stinging defeats...
Y'know, my will to win baseball games would suffer too if I had to constantly read tortured prose like this.
...Suddenly, Alex Rodriguez can't get back fast enough. Suddenly, nobody cares if he wants to kiss himself in the mirror as long as he gets Angel Berroa and his two errors Sunday night out of the lineup.
I know A-Rod is the favorite whipping boy of just about everyone (especially given the admissions of steroids), but give me a break. Why is it a bad thing that the Yankees need him to get healthy? They're are always going to be worse off with him out of the lineup because he's one of the best hitters in the game and plays a decent third base for a guy who's really a shortstop. And yes, Angel Berroa is fucking awful, but the Yankees have already gone through two third basemen so far. (Although Cody Ransom was pretty fucking awful too.) Although that being said, the Red Sox have Nick "Why The Fuck Am I A Starter" Green as a shortstop, and I'm pretty sure he's sole reason why they haven't won 15 of their last 11 games. Asshole.
Secondly if Steroid-Taking-Pansy-Rod (I'm on fire with the nicknames) is such a malignant force on team unity or whatever, wouldn't he automatically make the Yankees less tough and henceforth cause them to lose more games? Is anyone really surprised at the lack of logic here?
Suddenly, the pressure is really on CC Sabathia to shake off his April mediocrity and flex his $181 million muscles tonight in Detroit before this turns into something bigger than an early-season slap in the face.
You know who did this last night? Justin Verlander. (And Tim Wakefield, but that's another story.) At least CC didn't give the Yankees bullpen another chance to suck...
For the moment, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about these Yankees, but if you are looking for the reason this sweep looms as truly significant, it has to be the difference between the bullpens.
In the first two games of the series, the Red Sox had already established the obvious: only one of these two teams has a championship-caliber bullpen.
Statistically the Sox have the best bullpen in the majors, while the Yankees have some real issues, and that difference could wind up dictating the direction of the American League East race this season...
If you look at it, both bullpens weren't that impressive. While Delcarmen, Paplebon and Ramon Ramirez have been good, there's a precipitous and concerning drop-off after that. (Masterson hasn't been awful, but he's in the rotation now, which is where I think he belongs.) Furthermore, by what stats do the Red Sox have the best bullpen in the majors right now? Sure it's good, but I'd argue the Kansas City Royals are at least as good, if not better, and the Los Angeles Dodgers (minus Ronald Belisario) aren't that much farther behind. (Did I seriously equate the Red Sox and the Royals? There's a sentence I thought I'd never write.)
But yeah, the Yankees bullpen is awful. But that's due to their pitchers being young and terrible, not because they aren't tough. This problem certainly could be attributed to the so-called "Golden Years" of Joe Torre, in which the Yankees relied on an increasingly aged group of free-agent pick-ups to staff their bullpen. (In 2004, their last "Golden Year", the main guys coming out of the bullpen besides Rivera were Tom Gordon, Paul Quantril, and Tanyon Sturtze). Such luck couldn't continue forever, and I can't fault them for trying to home-grow a bullpen. Just too bad all those young pitchers haven't been good.
...Tell the truth: had you ever heard of Hunter Jones and Michael Bowden, the two rookies who pitched 2-2/3 scoreless innings? Did you even know that Takashi Saito, the former Dodger who closed out Sunday night's game, was in the Red Sox bullpen?
I will tell the truth: I'd heard of Hunter Jones, I was vaguely aware of Michael Bowden, and, yes, I did know Saito was in the pen, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE PITCHED IN GAME ONE OF THE SERIES. This is one of several shots taken at the so-called "B-squad" of Sox pitchers, and I'll admit that Jones and Bowden are relative unknowns, but Takashi Saito is an established major league pitcher and was part of the much-lauded low-risk bits-and-pieces moves the Sox made in the offseason. In short, the only reason to not know about Saito is just not knowing anything about baseball. Although I wouldn't be surprised if this was true of John Harper, considering how dumb this article has been already.
Maybe Ellsbury's steal of home juiced the crowd and made Pettitte look foolish, but it wasn't the decisive moment in the game. The Sox already led 2-1, and after the game Pettitte wasn't nearly as angry about the steal as he was for getting careless with an 1-2 fastball to David Ortiz that gave the Sox that lead and put Ellsbury at third.
"I had him so set up for a fastball inside that I got careless and I ran it across the plate," Pettitte said. "That pitch changed the game."
It didn't have to, but the Yankees couldn't recover. They couldn't put together any kind of offense against Justin Masterson, the reliever who has taken the injured Daisuke Matsuzaka's place in the Sox rotation, or the "B" relievers.
None of this has anything to do with toughness. And what's with the Masterson hate? He hasn't been the second coming of Pedro Martinez, but he's pitched decently well (career ERA+ of 152 and career WHIP of 1.229) in his time in the majors. Just because Masterson is young and lacking in big league experience doesn't automatically mean he can't pitch. Just because the Yankees' young arms have generally stunk so far doesn't mean the same has to be true for the other team. And it has nothing to do with toughness and everything to do with bad pitching. This stinks of an entitlement complex on the part of John Harper...
The only good news for the Yankees was the debut of Mark Melancon, whose two scoreless innings could prove significant.
With Brian Bruney on the disabled list because of an elbow injury, the Yankees are praying that Melancon, a righthander who some in the organization have been touting as Mariano Rivera's successor someday, can be a Joba-like bullpen phenom immediately for a bullpen that started the night with a 6.68 ERA.
By contrast the Boston pen leads the majors with a 2.38 ERA. Presuming that Masterson goes back to the pen at some point, the Red Sox could have the strongest and deepest relief corps in the majors...
The loss of Bruney hurts the Yankees bullpen a lot, since he was the only one not named Rivera that was pitching well. But, again, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TOUGHNESS? Also, ERA isn't necessarily the greatest measure of a good bullpen, just the way that batting average isn't necessarily the best way to gauge hitters. I'd also like to note that this vaunted Boston bullpen contains 3 regulars with ERAs over 4 right now (Okajima, Saito, and Javier Lopez) and that this 2.38 figure is distorted by the impossible-to-sustain-over-the-course-of-a-season awesomeness of Delcarmen and Ramirez. The sum of the whole is greater than its parts.
I will admit however, that Right now it looks like the Red Sox have a very deep pitching staff, but this has NOTHING TO DO WITH TOUGHNESS. It has everything to do with the Red Sox having a better pitchers.
Who knows, maybe the Yankees just caught the Red Sox when they were hot, and no one will remember this sweep in a couple of months.
Yes, exactly. Why are you making my points for me?
Then again, Pettitte admitted, "We know that's a really good team and they play really hard."
This is a throwaway quote. Pettitte is basically saying good teams play good baseball. And yet John Harper is staking his whole toughness assertion on this quote. You sir, fail at writing.
As a side note, you know who else plays really hard? David Eckstein. And he su...oh wait, he's not doing that badly this year. (I started that joke before I looked his stats up.)
Let's try that again.
You know who else plays really hard? Darin Erstad. He plays so hard that he used to be a punter as well as a baseball player, yet his OPS+ is currently -5.
There we go.
What was I doing? Oh right...
The Sox have a better bullpen, no question. But the troubling question that comes out of this series is simple: Are they more tough-minded, too?
Simple answer: No. The Sox just have a better bullpen, and that was the major reason for the sweep. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.
Better pitching is in no way analogous to being tougher, unless you define "tougher" as "more difficult to beat because Phillip Thaddeus Cocaine IV isn't coming out of the bullpen". (I'm still on fire with the nicknames.) You know what team had a great bullpen? The 2005 Chicago White Sox, yet Dustin Hermanson was a bed-wetter, Cliff Politte had arachibutyrophobia, and Neal Cotts threw like a girl.
THE YANKEES AREN'T TOUGH ANYMORE, by one panicked John Harper. (Yes this has been torn apart by several bloggers already. But that doesn't stop it from being insane.)
In the end, the steal of home was more than an embarrassing punctuation mark to a sweep at the hands of the Red Sox that was full of heartbreak and exasperation.
For the Yankees, it was symbolic of a weekend in which they were beaten in the cruelest of ways, three losses that leave you wondering if they are as tough as the Red Sox anymore. Is it possible that years of first-round playoff exits and then an empty October in 2008 have stolen whatever grit remained from the Joe Torre glory years?
Yes, it is possible. If that grit was still around it would mean someone never cleaned old Yankee Stadium, and their dirty standards are being kept up in the new place and...ew. Just...ew. Housekeeping aside...
You could surely make the case after the Red Sox seemed to will themselves to comeback victories on Friday and Saturday, and then the Yankees Sunday night looked like a team that had had the fight taken out of them by those stinging defeats...
Y'know, my will to win baseball games would suffer too if I had to constantly read tortured prose like this.
...Suddenly, Alex Rodriguez can't get back fast enough. Suddenly, nobody cares if he wants to kiss himself in the mirror as long as he gets Angel Berroa and his two errors Sunday night out of the lineup.
I know A-Rod is the favorite whipping boy of just about everyone (especially given the admissions of steroids), but give me a break. Why is it a bad thing that the Yankees need him to get healthy? They're are always going to be worse off with him out of the lineup because he's one of the best hitters in the game and plays a decent third base for a guy who's really a shortstop. And yes, Angel Berroa is fucking awful, but the Yankees have already gone through two third basemen so far. (Although Cody Ransom was pretty fucking awful too.) Although that being said, the Red Sox have Nick "Why The Fuck Am I A Starter" Green as a shortstop, and I'm pretty sure he's sole reason why they haven't won 15 of their last 11 games. Asshole.
Secondly if Steroid-Taking-Pansy-Rod (I'm on fire with the nicknames) is such a malignant force on team unity or whatever, wouldn't he automatically make the Yankees less tough and henceforth cause them to lose more games? Is anyone really surprised at the lack of logic here?
Suddenly, the pressure is really on CC Sabathia to shake off his April mediocrity and flex his $181 million muscles tonight in Detroit before this turns into something bigger than an early-season slap in the face.
You know who did this last night? Justin Verlander. (And Tim Wakefield, but that's another story.) At least CC didn't give the Yankees bullpen another chance to suck...
For the moment, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about these Yankees, but if you are looking for the reason this sweep looms as truly significant, it has to be the difference between the bullpens.
In the first two games of the series, the Red Sox had already established the obvious: only one of these two teams has a championship-caliber bullpen.
Statistically the Sox have the best bullpen in the majors, while the Yankees have some real issues, and that difference could wind up dictating the direction of the American League East race this season...
If you look at it, both bullpens weren't that impressive. While Delcarmen, Paplebon and Ramon Ramirez have been good, there's a precipitous and concerning drop-off after that. (Masterson hasn't been awful, but he's in the rotation now, which is where I think he belongs.) Furthermore, by what stats do the Red Sox have the best bullpen in the majors right now? Sure it's good, but I'd argue the Kansas City Royals are at least as good, if not better, and the Los Angeles Dodgers (minus Ronald Belisario) aren't that much farther behind. (Did I seriously equate the Red Sox and the Royals? There's a sentence I thought I'd never write.)
But yeah, the Yankees bullpen is awful. But that's due to their pitchers being young and terrible, not because they aren't tough. This problem certainly could be attributed to the so-called "Golden Years" of Joe Torre, in which the Yankees relied on an increasingly aged group of free-agent pick-ups to staff their bullpen. (In 2004, their last "Golden Year", the main guys coming out of the bullpen besides Rivera were Tom Gordon, Paul Quantril, and Tanyon Sturtze). Such luck couldn't continue forever, and I can't fault them for trying to home-grow a bullpen. Just too bad all those young pitchers haven't been good.
...Tell the truth: had you ever heard of Hunter Jones and Michael Bowden, the two rookies who pitched 2-2/3 scoreless innings? Did you even know that Takashi Saito, the former Dodger who closed out Sunday night's game, was in the Red Sox bullpen?
I will tell the truth: I'd heard of Hunter Jones, I was vaguely aware of Michael Bowden, and, yes, I did know Saito was in the pen, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE PITCHED IN GAME ONE OF THE SERIES. This is one of several shots taken at the so-called "B-squad" of Sox pitchers, and I'll admit that Jones and Bowden are relative unknowns, but Takashi Saito is an established major league pitcher and was part of the much-lauded low-risk bits-and-pieces moves the Sox made in the offseason. In short, the only reason to not know about Saito is just not knowing anything about baseball. Although I wouldn't be surprised if this was true of John Harper, considering how dumb this article has been already.
Maybe Ellsbury's steal of home juiced the crowd and made Pettitte look foolish, but it wasn't the decisive moment in the game. The Sox already led 2-1, and after the game Pettitte wasn't nearly as angry about the steal as he was for getting careless with an 1-2 fastball to David Ortiz that gave the Sox that lead and put Ellsbury at third.
"I had him so set up for a fastball inside that I got careless and I ran it across the plate," Pettitte said. "That pitch changed the game."
It didn't have to, but the Yankees couldn't recover. They couldn't put together any kind of offense against Justin Masterson, the reliever who has taken the injured Daisuke Matsuzaka's place in the Sox rotation, or the "B" relievers.
None of this has anything to do with toughness. And what's with the Masterson hate? He hasn't been the second coming of Pedro Martinez, but he's pitched decently well (career ERA+ of 152 and career WHIP of 1.229) in his time in the majors. Just because Masterson is young and lacking in big league experience doesn't automatically mean he can't pitch. Just because the Yankees' young arms have generally stunk so far doesn't mean the same has to be true for the other team. And it has nothing to do with toughness and everything to do with bad pitching. This stinks of an entitlement complex on the part of John Harper...
The only good news for the Yankees was the debut of Mark Melancon, whose two scoreless innings could prove significant.
With Brian Bruney on the disabled list because of an elbow injury, the Yankees are praying that Melancon, a righthander who some in the organization have been touting as Mariano Rivera's successor someday, can be a Joba-like bullpen phenom immediately for a bullpen that started the night with a 6.68 ERA.
By contrast the Boston pen leads the majors with a 2.38 ERA. Presuming that Masterson goes back to the pen at some point, the Red Sox could have the strongest and deepest relief corps in the majors...
The loss of Bruney hurts the Yankees bullpen a lot, since he was the only one not named Rivera that was pitching well. But, again, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TOUGHNESS? Also, ERA isn't necessarily the greatest measure of a good bullpen, just the way that batting average isn't necessarily the best way to gauge hitters. I'd also like to note that this vaunted Boston bullpen contains 3 regulars with ERAs over 4 right now (Okajima, Saito, and Javier Lopez) and that this 2.38 figure is distorted by the impossible-to-sustain-over-the-course-of-a-season awesomeness of Delcarmen and Ramirez. The sum of the whole is greater than its parts.
I will admit however, that Right now it looks like the Red Sox have a very deep pitching staff, but this has NOTHING TO DO WITH TOUGHNESS. It has everything to do with the Red Sox having a better pitchers.
Who knows, maybe the Yankees just caught the Red Sox when they were hot, and no one will remember this sweep in a couple of months.
Yes, exactly. Why are you making my points for me?
Then again, Pettitte admitted, "We know that's a really good team and they play really hard."
This is a throwaway quote. Pettitte is basically saying good teams play good baseball. And yet John Harper is staking his whole toughness assertion on this quote. You sir, fail at writing.
As a side note, you know who else plays really hard? David Eckstein. And he su...oh wait, he's not doing that badly this year. (I started that joke before I looked his stats up.)
Let's try that again.
You know who else plays really hard? Darin Erstad. He plays so hard that he used to be a punter as well as a baseball player, yet his OPS+ is currently -5.
There we go.
What was I doing? Oh right...
The Sox have a better bullpen, no question. But the troubling question that comes out of this series is simple: Are they more tough-minded, too?
Simple answer: No. The Sox just have a better bullpen, and that was the major reason for the sweep. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.
Better pitching is in no way analogous to being tougher, unless you define "tougher" as "more difficult to beat because Phillip Thaddeus Cocaine IV isn't coming out of the bullpen". (I'm still on fire with the nicknames.) You know what team had a great bullpen? The 2005 Chicago White Sox, yet Dustin Hermanson was a bed-wetter, Cliff Politte had arachibutyrophobia, and Neal Cotts threw like a girl.
Monday, April 27, 2009
SWEEP!
The Red Sox got a nice performance from the bullpen tonight to finish off the sweep of some baseball team I don't really care about and would never write a blog dedicated to making fun of them. (Who gave you that crazy idea? Was it Steve?) Having been given a heavy workload in games 1 and 2 (and imploding in the latter), it was concerning to see Justin Masterson not make it out of the 6th. That being said, Hunter Jones (who?), Michael Bowden (WHO?) and Takashi Saito (wh...oh wait, I know this one) combined to pitch pretty damn well,a rare occurrence this weekend from either team. The Sox pitching (with a few exceptions named Ramon Ramirez) has been really under-performing this season, so hopefully this is a sign of things changing for the better. (Is it too much to hope that Okajima learns how to pitch again?) I can't argue with 12 - 6, but at some point those 16 - 11 wins are going to catch up with the Sox, even if the offense continues to get better and/or Nick "Why the Fuck Am I A Starter" Green is replaced with a real shortstop.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A Question
Since I'm here, which is going to happen first?
Phil Coke pitches an entire inning without giving up a run
OR
The Nationals win a game?
Phil Coke pitches an entire inning without giving up a run
OR
The Nationals win a game?
THE PANIC NUMBER
So the Indians have begun the season with an unfortunately miserable start. But the nice thing about the start of the season is it's a small sample size when it comes to gauging a team's overall performance. Teams that start poorly can rebound to be champions, and teams that start well can end of being the Kansas City Royals. (Hence why I haven't thrown myself off the Tobin Bridge due to poor performance of my beloved Red Sox.) Anyways, Jeff Passan is out of mind for writing off the Indians already.
So before burying the Indians with more than 95 percent of their season to play, allow us to present a few facts: Over the past 25 full seasons, 45 teams in Major League Baseball have begun their seasons 1-6 or worse. Of those 45, eight have finished the year with a better-than-average record. And of those eight, only one – the 2007 Philadelphia Phillies – made the postseason. In which they were promptly swept.
See why we call 1-6 the Panic Number?
It gets uglier when looking at the full seasons of the wild-card era. Since 1996, only three teams have finished above .500 after starting 1-6: the ’04, ’06 and ’07 Phillies, who seem to have a knack for reversing ugly starts.
The Indians, on the other hand, have started 1-6 twice since 1982. They went 60-102 the first time, 61-101 the second.
This is certainly an interesting theory, but it confuses correlation with causation. In other words, the two ideas are certainly related (since, well, bad teams tend to lose games), but there is no way to prove that this 1 - 6 definitively caused the team's whole season to go down the toilet. And why is The Panic Number (TM) 1 - 6? Isn't that a little bit arbitrary?
Furthermore, if 1 - 6 is really so damaging to a team that, for whatever reason, it will doom them to another 155 games of futility, wouldn't that mean it ANY team that hit The Panic Number (TM) during the course of the season suffer the same fate as the 45 referenced above? (In other words, what's the difference between going 1 - 6 in games 1 - 7 and winning game 1 and then going 1 - 6 in games 2 - 8?) If this is true, then the benchmark for any team that goes 1 - 6 is the aforementioned 2007 Philadelphia Phillies that won 89 regular season games and got swept in the post-season. Thus we can assume that it would be very difficult for a team to achieve any higher than this.
Except that assumption is TOTALLY WRONG. Check out this list of teams from the past five years alone that have had at least 1 stretch of 1 - 6 and made it past the high water mark of the 2007 Phillies. (All of the following teams made the playoffs.)
2008
Tampa Bay Rays: 97 – 65, 1 – 6 from July 6 -12
Chicago Cubs: 97 – 64, 1 – 6 from Aug 29 – Sept. 5
Philidelphia Philles: 92 – 67, 1 – 6 from June 16 – 24
Milwaukee Brewers: 90 – 72, 1 – 6 from May 1 – 8, July 25 – 31 and Aug. 9 – 16
2007
Boston Red Sox: 96 – 66, 1 – 6 from May 30th – June 6th
Los Angeles Angels: 96 - 66, 1 – 6 from April 11 – 17
New York Yankees: 94 – 68, 1 – 6 from April 19th – 26th, May 22nd – 29th, June 20th – 27th
Arizona Diamonbacks: 90 – 72, 1 – 6 from April 17 – 24th
Colorado Rockies: 90 – 73, 1 – 6 from June 21st – 27th
2006
New York Mets: 97 – 65, 1 -6 from Sept 20 – 26
Minnesota Twins: 96 – 66, 1 -6 from April 16th – 23
Oakland Athletics: 93 – 69, 1 – 6 from May 19th – 25th
2005
Chicago White Sox: 99 – 63, 1 – 6 from Aug 10 – 19, Sept. 9 – 15
New York Yankees: 95 – 67, 1 – 6 from April 10 – 17, May 27 – June 3
Boston Red Sox: 95 – 67, 1 – 6 from July 9 – 18
2004
New York Yankees: 101 – 61, 1 – 6 from Aug 15 – 22
Atlanta Braves: 96 – 66, 1 – 6 from May 5 – 12, June 16 – 23
Los Angeles Dodgers: 93 – 69, 1 -6 from May 12 – 19, June 20 – 26
Houston Astros: 92 – 70, 1 – 6 from June 11 - 17
Minnesota Twins: 92 – 70, 1 – 6 from Aug 5 - 11
Anahiem Angels: 92 – 70, 1 – 6 from June 27 – Jul 4
I think we can safely conclude The Panic Number is a little silly. Although now I'm going to spend the rest of the season following the Indians in the hope the don't become part of this.
So before burying the Indians with more than 95 percent of their season to play, allow us to present a few facts: Over the past 25 full seasons, 45 teams in Major League Baseball have begun their seasons 1-6 or worse. Of those 45, eight have finished the year with a better-than-average record. And of those eight, only one – the 2007 Philadelphia Phillies – made the postseason. In which they were promptly swept.
See why we call 1-6 the Panic Number?
It gets uglier when looking at the full seasons of the wild-card era. Since 1996, only three teams have finished above .500 after starting 1-6: the ’04, ’06 and ’07 Phillies, who seem to have a knack for reversing ugly starts.
The Indians, on the other hand, have started 1-6 twice since 1982. They went 60-102 the first time, 61-101 the second.
This is certainly an interesting theory, but it confuses correlation with causation. In other words, the two ideas are certainly related (since, well, bad teams tend to lose games), but there is no way to prove that this 1 - 6 definitively caused the team's whole season to go down the toilet. And why is The Panic Number (TM) 1 - 6? Isn't that a little bit arbitrary?
Furthermore, if 1 - 6 is really so damaging to a team that, for whatever reason, it will doom them to another 155 games of futility, wouldn't that mean it ANY team that hit The Panic Number (TM) during the course of the season suffer the same fate as the 45 referenced above? (In other words, what's the difference between going 1 - 6 in games 1 - 7 and winning game 1 and then going 1 - 6 in games 2 - 8?) If this is true, then the benchmark for any team that goes 1 - 6 is the aforementioned 2007 Philadelphia Phillies that won 89 regular season games and got swept in the post-season. Thus we can assume that it would be very difficult for a team to achieve any higher than this.
Except that assumption is TOTALLY WRONG. Check out this list of teams from the past five years alone that have had at least 1 stretch of 1 - 6 and made it past the high water mark of the 2007 Phillies. (All of the following teams made the playoffs.)
2008
Tampa Bay Rays: 97 – 65, 1 – 6 from July 6 -12
Chicago Cubs: 97 – 64, 1 – 6 from Aug 29 – Sept. 5
Philidelphia Philles: 92 – 67, 1 – 6 from June 16 – 24
Milwaukee Brewers: 90 – 72, 1 – 6 from May 1 – 8, July 25 – 31 and Aug. 9 – 16
2007
Boston Red Sox: 96 – 66, 1 – 6 from May 30th – June 6th
Los Angeles Angels: 96 - 66, 1 – 6 from April 11 – 17
New York Yankees: 94 – 68, 1 – 6 from April 19th – 26th, May 22nd – 29th, June 20th – 27th
Arizona Diamonbacks: 90 – 72, 1 – 6 from April 17 – 24th
Colorado Rockies: 90 – 73, 1 – 6 from June 21st – 27th
2006
New York Mets: 97 – 65, 1 -6 from Sept 20 – 26
Minnesota Twins: 96 – 66, 1 -6 from April 16th – 23
Oakland Athletics: 93 – 69, 1 – 6 from May 19th – 25th
2005
Chicago White Sox: 99 – 63, 1 – 6 from Aug 10 – 19, Sept. 9 – 15
New York Yankees: 95 – 67, 1 – 6 from April 10 – 17, May 27 – June 3
Boston Red Sox: 95 – 67, 1 – 6 from July 9 – 18
2004
New York Yankees: 101 – 61, 1 – 6 from Aug 15 – 22
Atlanta Braves: 96 – 66, 1 – 6 from May 5 – 12, June 16 – 23
Los Angeles Dodgers: 93 – 69, 1 -6 from May 12 – 19, June 20 – 26
Houston Astros: 92 – 70, 1 – 6 from June 11 - 17
Minnesota Twins: 92 – 70, 1 – 6 from Aug 5 - 11
Anahiem Angels: 92 – 70, 1 – 6 from June 27 – Jul 4
I think we can safely conclude The Panic Number is a little silly. Although now I'm going to spend the rest of the season following the Indians in the hope the don't become part of this.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Phil Coke Still Terrible; Sun Also Rose
As much as I enjoy watching the Yankees lose in heart wrenching fashion to the Royals, this one was bittersweet.
If Phil Coke continues to pitch this badly I'm concerned that he might get demoted. Who am I going to make fun of in the 'pen for having an unfortunate name? Jose Albaladejo is a cruel simulacrum.
In other news, I eagerly await the inevitable moment when Robinson Cano's OPS drops below 1.000.
Also, would it kill the Red Sox to, you know, WIN A GAME?
If Phil Coke continues to pitch this badly I'm concerned that he might get demoted. Who am I going to make fun of in the 'pen for having an unfortunate name? Jose Albaladejo is a cruel simulacrum.
In other news, I eagerly await the inevitable moment when Robinson Cano's OPS drops below 1.000.
Also, would it kill the Red Sox to, you know, WIN A GAME?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
2 Bad Posts for the Price of 1!
I was going to lay off the Yankee hate for one day and maybe write about other things occurring in baseball, but then I decided to read the NY Post for reactions to the opening day loss and came across this horrific article by George King. I realize calling out the NY Post for bad journalism is like calling out...um...yeah, I got nothing. (I need to work on the whole joke thing.) Point being, I was going to let the article slide until I got to this part:
After going hitless in his first three plate appearances, Teixeira had a chance to mute the loud boos in his hometown from O's fans that foolishly hold it against him for not signing with the downtrodden club.
Now, I suppose this could be a commentary on ridiculousness of the American Zeitgeist being dominated by a child's game to the point of manifesting hatred against certain individuals without ever meeting them, but this is the NY Post we're talking about. Thus: are you fucking kidding me?! A prize free-agent pickup spurns the team he grew up idolizing and instead signs with the chief division rival and the fans of said team can't express their disappointment and frustration? To say that Orioles fans have no grounds to boo Teixeira is like suggesting the NY Post writes good articles. (Buh-ZING!)
Also, it's fucking insane.
So now on to what I was originally going to post....
Jamie Moyer lost his first start of the season, which is a shame because I've got a lot of respect for a major leaguer whose velocity is less than his age (I am not below taking a cheap shot) and because I want Moyer to win as many games as possible since it will prove a point that many baseball fans fail to realize. Mainly, 300 wins is a pointless statistic by which to measure a pitcher's worth. If Moyer somehow manages to pitch a few more years (probably wont happen) and win around 12 games each year, he could top that plateau which would easily prove my earlier contention and, furthermore, that wins are a generally pointless statistic.
Let's face it, Moyer has been an above-average (though sometimes very good) pitcher for a long time. Is this to be commended? Absolutely. But does reaching 300 wins elevate him to the pantheon of the greatest pitchers of all time? Do his amazingly average stats (career ERA+ of 106, for instance) disappear because of this arbitrary number? (I'd be the smartass that provides answers for the questions, except both of them are rhetorical. I really need to practice this whole biting sarcastic commentary thing.) I'd love to see someone try to defend Moyer's Hall of Fame credentials if he does win 300, mainly because I'd love to tear that person apart for being an idiot.
After going hitless in his first three plate appearances, Teixeira had a chance to mute the loud boos in his hometown from O's fans that foolishly hold it against him for not signing with the downtrodden club.
Now, I suppose this could be a commentary on ridiculousness of the American Zeitgeist being dominated by a child's game to the point of manifesting hatred against certain individuals without ever meeting them, but this is the NY Post we're talking about. Thus: are you fucking kidding me?! A prize free-agent pickup spurns the team he grew up idolizing and instead signs with the chief division rival and the fans of said team can't express their disappointment and frustration? To say that Orioles fans have no grounds to boo Teixeira is like suggesting the NY Post writes good articles. (Buh-ZING!)
Also, it's fucking insane.
So now on to what I was originally going to post....
Jamie Moyer lost his first start of the season, which is a shame because I've got a lot of respect for a major leaguer whose velocity is less than his age (I am not below taking a cheap shot) and because I want Moyer to win as many games as possible since it will prove a point that many baseball fans fail to realize. Mainly, 300 wins is a pointless statistic by which to measure a pitcher's worth. If Moyer somehow manages to pitch a few more years (probably wont happen) and win around 12 games each year, he could top that plateau which would easily prove my earlier contention and, furthermore, that wins are a generally pointless statistic.
Let's face it, Moyer has been an above-average (though sometimes very good) pitcher for a long time. Is this to be commended? Absolutely. But does reaching 300 wins elevate him to the pantheon of the greatest pitchers of all time? Do his amazingly average stats (career ERA+ of 106, for instance) disappear because of this arbitrary number? (I'd be the smartass that provides answers for the questions, except both of them are rhetorical. I really need to practice this whole biting sarcastic commentary thing.) I'd love to see someone try to defend Moyer's Hall of Fame credentials if he does win 300, mainly because I'd love to tear that person apart for being an idiot.
Robinson Cano OBP watch begins
The Yankees 10-5 loss to Baltimore on opening day definitely inspired the creation of this humble blog. I nearly overdosed on schadenfreude (Phil Coke has a lower ERA than C.C. Sabathia), and then I realized that Robinson Cano actually walked this game. Twice.
At this rate he'll easily eclipse his career high of 39.
Let's hand the Yankees the trophy now.
Random statistic: Barry Bonds walked 232 times in 2004.
At this rate he'll easily eclipse his career high of 39.
Let's hand the Yankees the trophy now.
Random statistic: Barry Bonds walked 232 times in 2004.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Woo!
I've long wanted to blog about baseball, by which I mean I avidly read FJM and thought "hey, wouldn't it be fun to write like that" (ignoring the fact that I cannot write like that). So here's to humble beginnings. And with that:
I hate Robinson Cano.
Seriously.
See, I'm a Red Sox fan, and like any member of The Nation (or fans of just about any other team) I hate the Yankees. But I've tried to come to terms with that. They have endless cash supply and will always field the most impressive group of talent (oh, and Derek Jeter too) and will wind up being World Series favorites every year and we're all jealous of it. That's just how baseball works.
But when they start producing stars through their farm system AND dole out $5,000,000,000,000,000 on free agents then something has gone horribly wrong with the order of the game. (Note: that figure may be exaggerated a bit.) Which is where Robinson Cano fits in. At the tender age of 23, (his second in the majors), he put up an OPS+ of 126. Which is extremely impressive when you consider he walked about -26 times. (Note: that figure may be exaggerated a bit.) If the Yankees can produce players like that, what hope do the Oakland As and Minnesota Twins of the baseball world have? (Or the non-metaphorical Oakland As and Minnesota Twins, for that matter?)
Of course, something miraculous happened. Last year, the goddamn Tampa Bay Rays won the AL pennant and Robinson Cano was basically the worst everyday second baseman in the majors not named Freddy Sanchez. (I could back this up with statistics, but unsubstantiated arguments are basically the point of blogging.) For a brief moment all was right with the world. The looming danger of young, talented, and homegrown Yankee team is hopefully over. Thus us non-Yankee fans can safely ridicule all their young players again*, safe in the knowledge that the most powerful team in baseball cannot have their cake and eat it too.
And thus the non-stop ridicule of Robinson Cano will commence.
(*Note that when I say "all their young players" I really mean "everyone but Phil Coke" since, let's face it, that's the greatest name for a middle reliever since Joe Hey Remember That One Time At Studio 54 pitched three scorless innings for the Giants in 1994 before disappearing in the company of Darryl Strawberry and was never heard from again.)
(Wow, that was an awful joke.)
(Robinson Cano sucks.)
I hate Robinson Cano.
Seriously.
See, I'm a Red Sox fan, and like any member of The Nation (or fans of just about any other team) I hate the Yankees. But I've tried to come to terms with that. They have endless cash supply and will always field the most impressive group of talent (oh, and Derek Jeter too) and will wind up being World Series favorites every year and we're all jealous of it. That's just how baseball works.
But when they start producing stars through their farm system AND dole out $5,000,000,000,000,000 on free agents then something has gone horribly wrong with the order of the game. (Note: that figure may be exaggerated a bit.) Which is where Robinson Cano fits in. At the tender age of 23, (his second in the majors), he put up an OPS+ of 126. Which is extremely impressive when you consider he walked about -26 times. (Note: that figure may be exaggerated a bit.) If the Yankees can produce players like that, what hope do the Oakland As and Minnesota Twins of the baseball world have? (Or the non-metaphorical Oakland As and Minnesota Twins, for that matter?)
Of course, something miraculous happened. Last year, the goddamn Tampa Bay Rays won the AL pennant and Robinson Cano was basically the worst everyday second baseman in the majors not named Freddy Sanchez. (I could back this up with statistics, but unsubstantiated arguments are basically the point of blogging.) For a brief moment all was right with the world. The looming danger of young, talented, and homegrown Yankee team is hopefully over. Thus us non-Yankee fans can safely ridicule all their young players again*, safe in the knowledge that the most powerful team in baseball cannot have their cake and eat it too.
And thus the non-stop ridicule of Robinson Cano will commence.
(*Note that when I say "all their young players" I really mean "everyone but Phil Coke" since, let's face it, that's the greatest name for a middle reliever since Joe Hey Remember That One Time At Studio 54 pitched three scorless innings for the Giants in 1994 before disappearing in the company of Darryl Strawberry and was never heard from again.)
(Wow, that was an awful joke.)
(Robinson Cano sucks.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
