Maddux, Glavine, And Smoltz Would Have Tanked In NY Too

Oh, Joel Sherman, what are we going to do with you? In his 3UP blog post this morning, Sherman says that the Yankees "cannot be overly encouraged" by Vazquez' start last night. And to an extent, Sherman's right. It wasn't a great start, but it was a helluva lot better than his first two. And he's still just three starts into the season.

But going off on another pro-Javy screed isn't what I intend to do today. Instead, let's take a look at Sherman's parting shot:

However, keep in mind that Vazquez is the fifth high-profile pitcher to move directly from the Braves to the Yankees since the turn of the century. The first four were all free agents and all pretty much disasters as Yankees: Steve Karsay, Chris Hammond, Kyle Farnsworth and Jaret Wright. Denny Neagle and Mark Wohlers were one-team removed from the Braves, when they also came with some fanfare in trades to the Yankees, and then tanked in New York.

So maybe there is a trend here that the Yankees need to beware of ex-Brave pitchers.

Wow. Just wow. So that's why Boone Logan pitched himself into that bases loaded jam in the seventh. It's the curse of the Braves!

I don't know where to begin with this one. How about Sherman's generously broad definition of "high-profile"? Chris Hammond, really? He's high-profile? The guy was out of baseball for two full years, and out of the Majors for four, before parlaying a single comeback season in Atlanta into a deal with the Yankees. And by the way, though I was no fan of his, he posted a 2.86 ERA over his one season in pisntripes. Some disaster.

How about Steve Karsay? Karsay was very effective in 2002, his first year with the Yankees. In fact, he was so effective that Joe Torre rode him like a rented mule and essentially ended his career, missing all of 2003 and tossing only 37.2 IP over the remainder of his career.

And since when were set-up men and back-of-the-rotation starters high-profile? Who could possibly have framed these middle-of-the-road type players, who alredy had checkered histories upon arriving in the Bronx, as high-profile acquisitions? I know; the New York tabloid media, of which Sherman is a part, could.

For Sherman to even refer to this foursome as Braves pitchers is tenuous as well. Karsay spent half of one season in Atlanta, throwing 44.2 innings. Hammond was there for a year, tossing 76 frames. Farnsworth was in Atlanta for just a half season, throwing all of 27.1 innings. Jaret Wright is the most-tenured member of the group, spending a whopping 13 months in Hot Lanta and pitching 195.1 innings.

All four had brief stays in Atlanta, just as Vazquez and Logan did. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the Yankees shouldn't acquire pitchers who spend less than two full seasons in Atlanta. Or maybe the Yankees just played a late game last night, Sherman was tired, and decided to throw some garbage at the wall to see what sticks. Or maybe Sherman was being facetious, and I'm just too dumb to figure it out.

Just to be on the safe side though, if Frank Wren calls Brian Cashman offering Tommy Hansen, Cash should just hang up. It's probably a trap.

I Know That Face: McGwire, A-Rod and Posnanski

I didn't really want to talk about this subject, but for some odd reason, I've been thinking a lot about Mark McGwire over the past two days. The reason of course is obvious, but it's odd because I've never really cared much about McGwire before Monday. When you say "baseball" and "1998" the first thing that comes to mind is the unstoppable version of the Yankees that won 114 games and the World Series. I never really cared that Big Mac took steroids, but I still consider the single season home run record to be 61 (although Maris' 1961 campaign obviously comes with its own set of caveats). Basically, I was fairly indifferent about the guy and still am about steroid use in general.

But then I read the part of his statement where he said "wished he never played during the steroid era" and quickly realized this wasn't going to be an actual apology. Then I watched the interview with Bob Costas on Monday night and listened to McGwire refuse to acknowledge that there might be some connection between him taking steroids and hitting lots of home runs and I grew more disenchanted. My first mistake was expecting a real apology in the first place. My second mistake was watching the interview.

At that point I was ensnared in the story. I read reaction after reaction yesterday, some echoing the disapproval Tom Verducci and Ken Rosenthal showed on the MLB Network after the interview and some questioning why McGwire's apology wasn't good enough for us. Even those who claimed not to care were adamant in their apathy.

While no one was particularly surprised by McGwire's admission, the story still got huge and reached a point of ridiculous oversaturation. Basically everyone with a voice in the baseball media offered their opinion and there were responses to the interview and also retorts to those responses.

Well, here I am with a rebuttal to a retort to the responses. When you are a media bottom feeder like myself and you wait 36 hours to give your opinion on a story like this, all that's left is the backwash of the backlash. So here goes nothing...

If you don't read Joe Posnanski's blog, you are truly missing out. If there was a sports writers draft tomorrow, he would be snatched up with the first pick. He weaves together disparate topics with ease and makes seemingly uninteresting things worth reading about. His posts are long and nuanced and are meant to be read in full, but I'm going to blockquote him here (and take him out of context) to make a point.

From his reaction to the McGwire interview (or more accurately, his reaction to other's reactions):

I didn't agree with or even follow everything McGwire said, but I never thought that was the point. I never thought apologizing was an Olympic sport with stoned-faced people judging how straight his toes were pointed and if he made too big a splash. McGwire is not a public speaker. He's not a philosopher. He's not a politician. He is not even an especially open person. He is a guy who dedicated his life to hitting baseballs hard. Expecting him to become Hamlet doesn't seem fair.

This is a valid viewpoint. I happen to disagree, but two people can watch the same lengthy interview and come away with completely different perceptions of what just took place. There's a lot of wiggle room in 54 minutes of two-way conversation.

But look at Posnanski's reaction to A-Rod's interview with Peter Gammons last year:

I thought Alex Rodriguez’s ”apology“ was one of the most absurd shams of recent memory. I thought it was so pathetic that, for the first time, that ”A-Fraud“ moniker finally made some sense to me. As a baseball fan, I wasn’t mad at A-Rod when the steroid story broke. As a baseball fan, I was furious at A-Rod when he and his handlers put together this infomercial apology.

To me that sounds like Joe judging A-Rod's apology, something that "wasn't the point" when it was McGwire's turn in the hot seat. Again, there is a lot of room for interpretation and there are significant differences between the two situations and subsequent interviews (namely the interviewer), but it's hard to reconcile those two statements.

Both of these guys had handlers and given the attention that they were bound to garner by admitting to using steroids, they should have. The biggest difference was that McGwire's team had a month to orchestrate his PR offensive while A-Rod found out that he was going to have to face the music three days prior while he was running on a treadmill and confronted by Selena Roberts.

Poz goes on to suggest (about A-Rod):

That this is a PR campaign ordered up by a very rich man who got caught and the only goal was to admit as little as humanly possible and make excuses for the little he does admit.

McGwire didn't get caught, but the only reason that he's admitting this now is that he wants to be the hitting coach for the Cardinals and he knows he has to pay his pound of flesh to the media and get this out of the way now. But his PR campaign was far more calculated than A-Rod's was and similarly unbelievable.

If you're Mark McGwire, you don't pay the big bucks to a "crisis-communications company" to tell the whole truth. You hire them to conveniently confine your steroid usage to the smallest believable window, and claim you used them only to recover from injuries. You flatly deny Jose Canseco's account because he still doesn't have any real credibility despite the fact that most of the stuff he said was true. You say that you only used steroids in "very, very low dosage". You don't acknowledge that they might have made you a superhuman home run machine, because that would be cheating, you see? You just took them to get back to where you were. Heck, talk about the "backspin" you put on the ball and act like you unlocked some key to hitting. You're going to be a hitting coach after all!

When you hire a crisis-communications company, they feed you lines like "walking M*A*S*H unit" that you repeat over and over again. They find a way to spin your bungled appearance in front of congress in 2005 so it looks like it wasn't your fault. They make sure you don't incriminate your former coach and future boss by saying he had knowledge of your steroid use. They remind you to say that you "wish you never played in the steroid era". Because like A-Rod being naive and trying to live up to the expectations of a giant contract in Texas, you were a victim of circumstance - an injury-plagued slugger who just happened to play in the steroid era.

I don't like being lied to. I don't appreciate the fact that, not only does Mark McGwire think that he was a better home run hitter than Babe Ruth because of his "God-given ability", but that he is also smarter than everyone else and thinks he can pass off a partial admission because he hired a company to calculate exactly how much he had to admit.

The problem is that a story gets this big, and the mainstream media reaction becomes the villian. Everyone needs a take and no one wants to hear you repeat what Tom Verducci said 10 seconds after the interview concluded.

The one common thread between Posnanski's take on McGwire and A-Rod is that he says that he's shocked that he disagrees with everyone's else's reaction in both. I don't find that surprising at all. I think the best writers make a living on the opposite end of the spectrum (our pal Craig Calcaterra comes to mind). Not to say that they don't believe their own opinions, but the guys I most enjoy reading typically come down diametrically opposed to the majority reaction when a story like this breaks. They are good at finding something about conventional wisdom to disagree with and that makes their opinion interesting to read.

Well this time, I think the original consensus was right. I think McGwire's "admission" was, in many ways, just as bad as A-Rod's. I'm not willing to believe that he really took steroids just to get healthy and I think deep down he knows that they made him better.

If you grant that the truth lies between what Jose Canseco said and what McGwire did, well McGwire's lying because he said there was "absolutely no truth to that whatsoever". And what good is an apology if you're not going to tell the truth? Besides, I wasn't asking for an apology anyway. McGwire did this for himself. Which shouldn't be a surprise, because if he was doing it for everyone else, it would have happened years ago.

A Fitting Send-Off For The Big Unit

Randy Johnson's retirement announcement was originally supposed to take place today at some point. However, neither Randy nor any of his advisors realized that the Hall of Fame voting was also planned for this afternoon. As a result, they scrambled to rearrange the event for 7:00PM last night.

I happened to be watching the end of SportsCenter at that point and they directed people to ESPN News for the announcement, which I foolishly assumed would be some sort of a press conference. Instead, it was just a conference call. And a particularly disorganized one at that.

Randy came on just after 7:00 but in a moment of poetic justice, reporters kept joining the call, drowning out his official announcement with a series of beeps and at one point, a phone ringing in the background. They broke the call for a couple of minutes and then re-started it at about 7:05. He seemed all too happy to announce that this would be the last time he would take questions from MLB reporters and said that he didn't regret the way he treated other people during his career but did regret the way he was portrayed, as if those two weren't inextricably linked.

The horror stories about Johnson you'll hear from members of the media are numerous so it's sort of fitting that his aversion to them (holding a conference call) overshadowed what should have been a fairly significant announcement. Not many tears are shed over the way athletes treat reporters but the consensus is that Johnson was one of the worst.

Of course, Yankees fans don't have very fond memories of the Big Unit. Perhaps I was more naive about baseball back when they acquired following the 2004 season, but I expected him to be pretty awesome when he came to the Yankees. I think most people were in the same boat. The gap between the AL and NL didn't seem so large at that point and our view of aging players was badly skewed by steroids, even if we didn't fully realize it yet.

Johnson came to symbolize the worst of what the Yankees were about this decade - a guy who they acquired just past his prime who was still being paid like he was in the middle of it. Even with his flat sliders and surly temperment, Johnson wasn't that bad in 2005, picthing 225 innings to a 3.79 ERA. But he stumbled out of the gate a bit, giving up 15 runs in his first four starts, including 5 in a loss at Fenway Park. Although it probably wasn't fair, Yankees fans expected immediate dominance and instead they got mediocrity, starting off the relationship on the wrong foot.

The Big Unit finished out his '05 season with 5 consecutive wins but gave up 9 hits and 5 runs in 3 innings against the Angels in Game 3 of the ALDS. The following year started off better for Johnson but went downhill fast, a herniated disc in his back sapping his once legendary velocity and action and dragging his ERA down to an even 5.00. He made a start against the Tigers in the '06 ALDS but was tagged with the loss after allowing 5 runs in 5 2/3 innings.

Shortly thereafter, Johnson was headed back to the desert in exchange for Ross Olhendorf, Luis Vizcaino, Steven Jackson and Alberto Gonzalez, an impressive haul for a 42 year old pitcher with a back injury coming off a poor season.

Taking off the Pinstriped glasses, it's hard not to appreciate the uniqueness of Johnson's career. He has the most strikeouts per innings pitched of all-time among pitchers with 1000 IP and 100 decisions. Four consecutive Cy Young awards.

He was stiltishly tall and awkward, almost bird-like in his wingspan. By his 26th birthday he had accumulated all of 10 career wins but somehow managed to reach 300. He walked 416 batters from in the three years from 1990-1992 but only 978 in his final 16 seasons. He was a menacing presence -more feared than respected - but that's how he wanted it to be.

When Twitter Is Too Much: The 2009 Winter Meetings

There are times when Twitter can be a useful tool - an advantageous manifestation of technology that can help people relay information where other forms of media can not keep up or go at all. And then there are situations like Major League Baseball's Winter Meetings where the frequency of communication far exceeds the amount of information and those fishing for the latest tidbits from Indianapolis are coming up with a lot of old boots.

Let's assume that the 2009 Winter Meetings ultimately produce the same amount of trades, signings and other types of announcements that this summit yielded in each of the past couple of years. Maybe slightly more or, if you read the first-person accounts from the first day this year, slightly less - but we'll call it even. Given this assumption, what function does Twitter serve?

It has become the central source for breaking news. Within that though, the sources are fragmented, with Joel Sherman, Ken Rosenthal, Jon Heyman, Tim Brown and Buster Onley leading the way, countless others at a second tier and the untamed masses below that hungry for any dispatch the above can provide. There is an inherent power structure and it gives reporters the ability to post news essentially as soon as they find it out.

Once that news item gets stuffed into 140 characters (and somewhat mangled in the process), it gets passed around infinitely faster. Tweets get re-tweeted and shortened and re-tweeted again, echoed and dissected, posted to blogs and commented on. So in the time that it used to take reports to file a blog post back in the old days - 10 or 15 minutes, say -that tidbit has already traversed Twitter, reaching far more people that it previously would have and is going to be up on MLBTR very shortly.

However, there isn't any more news than there has been in the past, remember? So much of the messages that get tumbled through that cycle above are half-truths, speculation or worst of all, intentional misinformation.

The instantaneous nature of the media also produces the typical results of a game of telephone as shown by our friend Joe at RAB yesterday. The originating source says one thing, and since each person who discusses the rumor feels the need to rephrase it so as to not to simply regurgitate what was already said, and things that were intentionally vague at first become more and more certain without regard to the actual probability of occurrence.

In a way, this is similar to the quest for intelligence in preventing terrorism. We don't know what we're looking for; we just assume that there are bits of information that need to be uncovered which will predict things that are going to happen. Giving every CIA agent the ability to continuously feed information back to headquarters isn't necessarily going to lead to better information, just more of it.

At the Winter Meetings, there isn't just the ability to feed information, there is the pressure to do outdo every other reporter there. So ultimately (at least on the baseball side of this analogy), we spend more time overreacting to things that were never going to happen than analyzing the things hat actually do.

Kevin Kaduk from Big League Stew did a good job of summing it up this morning:

Not to sound too crotchety here, but it used to be that reporters had an entire day before the next edition — or at least a few hours before the next blog post — to sift through all the B.S. and decide which passed muster and which didn't. The result would be a piece that would float a few possiblities that we'd be able to consume and mull over.

Now we have a conflicting wall of noise that's often hard to translate. Want to write a blog post that takes an analytical look at the pluses and minuses of a proposed deal from your local beat reporter? Want to chew it over with fellow message board posters? Better make it quick, because by the time you even write a title, there'll be 18 additional tweets that will make your item obsolete before you hit publish.

Ironically, I started brainstorming for this post yesterday afternoon, so even writing about Twitter is subject to this reality.

But I agree with 'Duk's larger point in that sometimes the quest for instantaneous information is actually detrimental, particularly when there is little in the way of actual news and an incredible amount of white noise to wade through. In this case, the hunger for information is leading to more of it, while the amount of worthwhile tidbits remains the same.

Obviously, the Twitter train is already roaring full speed ahead and it's going to take a while for this dynamic to change. Our buddy Jason suggested that reporters rate the validity of their rumors on a scale of 1-10, and that might work in a perfect world, but people aren't going to want to attach a number rating to a rumor that might get thrown back in their face eventually. If you read between the lines, they already hedge their bets by using non-definitive wording like "possibly" and saying that teams are "in talks".

My solution to this problem is to follow from a distance and at the risk of not being the first person to discuss possible deals, not waste time fretting over spurious rumors. Your mileage may vary, but I'll trade the continuous ups and downs of reeling in the line - whether it be for boots or lunkers - for the certainty of cutting into the fish once it's on my plate.

How Not To Conduct An Interview, By Mark Grace

On the Bats Blog at the New York Times, Richard Sandomir points out something that never ceases to annoy me about the postgame interviews conducted by network reporters:

Fox needs a question coach for Mark Grace. One of the failings of many sideline/stadium reporters is that they do not jot down good, solid, clear questions to ask the stars of a game.

There usually isn’t much time to prepare, but coming up with three pertinent thoughts to frame as questions, or as leading statements, shouldn’t be as hard as a nervous Grace made it when he interviewed Jimmy Rollins after the Phillies’ 8-6 win against the Yankees in Game 5 of the World Series on Monday.

Sandomir uses Grace as an example and transcribes some example from last night, but you could easily switch his name with Kim Jones, Ken Rosenthal or countless other reporters. (Here's a clip of the Rosenthal & Grace interviews from last night). It seems as though, in the cutthroat world of TV journalism, interviewers are constantly trying use their queries to display how smart they are as opposed to asking questions that lead to good responses.

Since the best baseball players - the ones most likely to be interview after the game - are interviewed so frequently during the season, they answer the questions - or in many cases weak leading statements - with relative ease. The player knows what the interviewer is getting at and usually obliges them with the type of vague and vapid answer they think they are looking for.

ESPN has actually tried to correct this problem by hiring an interview guru named John Sawatsky to conduct seminars on the proper way to interview (sort of like the "question coach" Sandomir suggested). Here is an 8 minute radio segment and accompanying article from NPR from back in 2006 on that very subject.

Sawatsky is a full time employee in Bristol and has his own office, complete with a giant question mark on the door. Max Kellerman used to talk about the "Sawatsky Technique" on his old radio show on 1050AM in New York, but would struggle to take the advice, like he did in his botched interview with Floyd Mayweather after the Juan Manuel Marquez fight.

In the seminars, Sawatsky uses interviewers like Barbara Walters and Larry King as examples of exactly what not to do. Don't ask long-winded questions (or worse, make long-winded statements) or pose inquiries that only demand a "yes" or "no" response. Ask only one question at a time. Try to learn, not validate your own opinion. Don't try to insert yourself into the interview, because the interview isn't about you:

The best questions, argues Sawatsky, are like clean windows. “A clean window gives a perfect view. When we ask a question, we want to get a window into the source. When you put values in your questions, it’s like putting dirt on the window. It obscures the view of the lake beyond. People shouldn’t notice the question in an interview, just like they shouldn’t notice the window. They should be looking at the lake.

Makes sense, doesn't it? No one wants to hear Ken Rosenthal or Kim Jones awkwardly attempt to interject their observations on what just happened. They want to hear what the player was thinking. Typically the athletes don't really have anything interesting to say either, but maybe if the people interviewing them could put some effort into crafting questions that would provoke some thoughtful responses, that wouldn't be the case.

The New A-Rod

Good morning, Fackers. How are we feeling today? Better than yesterday I would imagine. Not only did the Yanks win last night, but they did so in dominating fashion behind a powerful performance by CC Sabathia with a 9th inning offensive outburst for a metaphorical cherry on top.

As discussed in the recap, A-Rod continued his blistering postseason by churning the Yankees' offense (along with Melky Cabrera and Johnny Damon) to a 10-1 victory. During his typical three minute chat with the press following the game, he was asked if the hardest part of his his day has actually become explaining how he's performed so well on the field to the media. He responded:

No, I don't really talk much anymore, so I don't ever have to explain myself. And that's a good thing.

It certainly is a good thing. This change in media strategy has been a direct result of handing over the reigns to Yankee's media relations manager Jason Zillo. Instead of being gassed up by agencies like William Morris or douchebags like Guy Oseary, A-Rod has optimized his P.R. strategy for the baseball media. He doesn't try to bear his soul for other people anymore and vowed to refocus his efforts towards baseball and not becoming a global brand.

As beat writer Mark Feinsand recently said in an interview with Will Leitch:

It seems like his biggest troubles started when he started listening to people like Guy Oseary, who may know how to handle this stuff for the likes of Madonna, but has no clue what sports media is like. Lining up Alex to do a photo shoot where he kissed himself in a mirror is the perfect example. That stuff is edgy and perfect in the music/entertainment world, but this guy is a ballplayer.

It's worked wonders this year, because after the firestorm this offseason, he's been relatively invisible.

I guess it's only natural that people in the media would want to attribute his incredible postseason to his new media strategy. But my question to them would be, "Why didn't it show up during the regular season?" That's not to say Alex didn't have an excellent season - he did - it's just that it fit right in line with the other great ones he's had in the past. Why didn't his new P.R. plan lead to huge numbers then?

The reality is that people in the media are going to stories about the media. That fact that he has limited the access reporters have to him has probably taken some pressure off of him in that he no longer is trying to be something he's not. But Jason Zillo isn't taking any at bats for him. A-Rod is mashing this postseason because he's a historically great hitter and was going to have a massive run in October eventually. We've all seen him go through streaks like this at times, it just so happens that this one is occurring at exactly the right time.

What's really great about A-Rod not having to explain himself (as he said above) is that people probably wouldn't understand him anyway. He's a bit of an odd duck, as displayed by his newfound hobby of dropping in on live interviews.

Michael Kay and Ken Singleton were talking about the man himself after last night's game when he thought it would be amusing to give Michael Kay a drive by tap on the shoulder.

And from the clinching game over the Twins...

[Last image via 3:10 to Joba]

The good news is that you don't have to be a normal person to be awesome at baseball. Maybe we'd like the best players on the team to be guys you could imagine drinking a beer with but what we really want are dudes who bash clutch home runs and steal bases too. As long as they aren't somehow offensive to our sensibilities in the 30 second sound bytes we get from them, it's fine. If that means A-Rod has to keep some things behind the curtain, or in this case, the plastic tarp, please, by all means...

Thanks, But That Would Be A Complete Waste Of A Roster Spot...

Good morning, Fackers. Last night, a suddenly contrite and shockingly self-actualized Joba Chamberlain told reporters that he would "fold towels" if that's what it took to win with the Yankees during the postseason.

Aside from the towel quote that Sam Borden transcribed in his post, here is another exchange that caught my ear from the audio he provided.

Joba: You know, I didn't have fastball command at all. It could have been a lot worse than it was but it was just lack of fastball command from the get-go... Mechanics-wise, I wasn't great. My delivery wasn't great and the delivery affects your command in every aspect.

Kim Jones: You were so good your last time out. How do you explain the inconsistency?

Joba: If I had an explanation, I could probably fix, you know, quicker than things go. That's part of this game and that's why people go in and do bullpen work and look at watch video and figure out what you can do better.

So he did have a bad outing because the players on the other team were "great hitters" or "a couple pitches" that went wrong as he claimed in the past.

Perhaps this is only because the Royals are astoundingly bad at hitting, but more likely it's that someone with the Yankees organization finally explained to Mr. Chamberlain how the media works. They aren't your parents trying to get you to admit your shortcomings as a way to make you take responsibility for them. Reporters need to pair your performance with a reaction so they can write a story about it that conveys what happened to the fans and get the fuck out of there. That process doesn't work when you give up 7 runs and say everything is fine and dandy.

It turns out that Joba wasn't just a delusional headcase, unable to acknowledge his mistakes. He was a kid from Nebraska being forced to come to terms with his failures in front of cameras and reporters with microphones and was getting a little defensive.

Joba mostly dodged questions about about his place on the postseason roster but made clear with his offer to do the work of a clubhouse attendant that he's not going to pout about being used out of the bullpen. I personally think that he is still enough of an asset to warrant occupying a spot on the postseason roster. I'd prefer a hypothetical ALCS Game 4 start to be made by Chad Gaudin and backed by Alfredo Aceves but Joba is still a better option to pitch an inning or two out of the bullpen than Brian Bruney. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but Joba seems to find his stroke when the pressure builds; Bruney just walks a lot of guys.

Since today is an off day, it's conceivable that Girardi uses Chamberlain sometime during the last two games of the Tampa Bay series to get him an inning or two out of the 'pen if indeed they plan on bringing him along for the ALDS. It would give him 3 or 4 days of rest which should be enough to free him up for a limited number of pitches.

I'm a lot less worried about Chamberlain's role in the postseason than I was a week or two ago, though. He's going to be one the the least important players not named Eric Hinske on the postseason roster if he is even ultimately included on it. The Yanks have won 102 games this year in spite of Joba, not because of him.

Calm Before The Storm

The next two series for the Yankees, separated by yet another off day Thursday, should serve as a nice tune up for the postseason and will represent the last meaningful games before the playoffs begin. During this six game stretch, the Yanks will certainly clinch a playoff berth but can go a long way towards securing the division and home field advantage as well.

The Yanks would have to falter badly while one of the other teams gets extremely hot to lose HFA or the AL East. If the Yanks go 5-7 over their final 12, the Red Sox would have to go 11-3 just to tie them and the Angels 11-2. Keep in mind that the Yanks have 3 games against the Royals and 3 against the Rays mixed in there as well.

So even though the Yanks just went 3-5 against the Orioles, Blue Jays and Mariners, and Pettitte is hurt and Joba sucks and Mo blew a save and Ian Snell just shut down the offense... let's try not to hit the panic button.

Expect both the series in Anaheim as well as the one in the Bronx against the Red Sox to extrapolated to predict the Yankees' success or failure in the postseason. There will be much talk about "playoff atmosphere" and possibly "must-win" games. Plenty will be said about the Yanks ability to get it done in the clutch and judgments will be made about whether or not they can get it done under pressure.

In reality, the outcome of these games has hardly any predictive value in looking towards the playoffs. Did the 8 consecutive games that the Red Sox won against the Yankees to begin the season do a very good job of predicting the Yankees sweep of them in early August? Then why would they dynamic change when the playoffs roll around? Answer: It doesn't, it's just a function of the media attempting to take the temperature of the team after every game in order to foreshadow what's going to happen when the games really matter.

Right now, teams are playing with house money and expanded rosters and as we know all too well, anything can happen in October. So whatever happens over the next six games, let's try to keep things in perspective.

Joba And The Media

Much has been said about Joba Chamberlain's reaction to his start yesterday. It's a rare occasion when the tabloids pass up a good opportunity for fear mongering about the Yanks 5.0 game (gasp!) lead to point out just how delusional Joba has been in regards to poor performance. This is nothing new. Back in early July we compared his comments to Ian Kennedy's shortly before he was demoted in August of 2008.

However, the difference now is that Kennedy's was a one-off incident and Joba has made these types of comments over and over again, every time he's grilled about his poor starts.

If you listen to the audio that PeteAbe provided, Joba first starts off by acknowledging that other people are going to be disappointed with him start, "I let my teammates down, you know, pretty much embarrassed them with what I did. You know, not being able to pick my teammates up and get out of here with the series win. That's the frustrating part." But then immediately says, about his stuff "You know, it was all working, surprisingly" and claims that if you take away one or two pitches, it's one or two runs.

With each question, you can hear the incredulous tone in the reporter's voices starting to sharpen. "When you say it was all working, but you give up 7 runs, how does that work in your mind?" Kim Jones said. PeteAbe then asked, "Joba, you said you want to take a positive out of everything. What positive can you take out of today?"

Like we've acknowledged before, there isn't a perfect correlation between throwing the ball well and having good outcomes on the mound. The batter, luck, the defense and the home plate ump all have a lot to do with it. That said, Joba's inability to take responsibility for his poor performances makes him seem even younger than 23. Like 12.

Joba treats the media like prying parents, demanding contrition for the mistakes he's made. He admits that he let his teammates, who are his peer group, down but sees the media as the authority figure in this case, the one who wants him to be accountable for what happens.

Is this a media story or a baseball story, though? Are we saying that Joba's refusal to face his failures head on makes him a poorer pitcher? Is it necessary that he admits his mistakes in order to pitcher better? Perhaps the fact that he doesn't let his bad starts bring him down is actually an asset. Maybe the fact that he's getting smeared in the papers is more of a personal vendetta against him by the writers whose questions he won't answer directly.

Along with the media, the fans also want their pound of flesh. They've been embarrassed too, and when they see or hear or read comments from the pitcher who just ruined their chance to watch their team win, it's not very endearing to hear him compliment the other team's batters and say how great his stuff was. The media is the conduit to the fans and some of the blame has to go to the organization for not conveying this dynamic to him better.

Let's just hope Joba pitches better against the Red Sox at home the next time out. He's much less delusional when he doesn't suck.

When Is A Plan Not A Plan?

In the car yesterday, I was listening to the radio pregame and heard Joe Girardi tell John Sterling on "The Manager's Show" (since confirmed by others) that Joba Chamberlain will now be starting on his regular 5 days of rest, but as Girardi said "may not always factor into the decision". This obviously means that instead of allowing him fewer starts, they are going to limit his innings per appearance.

Joba only has one start left before September call-ups are made, so hopefully Joe Girardi will utilize the resulting extra arms available to him to cushion the blow on the more valuable members of the bullpen. I have my doubts though, because Girardi, like Joe Torre before him, has real trouble putting any reliever that he doesn't trust into a game that isn't a totally one-sided. Much will depend on the standings, of course.

I wasn't sure why, but listening to Girardi deliver that piece of news, I felt a little miffed. Just like they did with A-Rod and his supposed "one day off per week" plan the Yankees immediately deviated from their stated intentions, which sort of defeats the purpose of, you know, having "a plan". That is their right, but at what point to do we stop listening to what the Yankees claim they are going to do?

Cashman and Girardi use of "plans" as a tool to convey their message to the media with a degree of certainty that stifles the speculation that can sometimes get out of hand in New York. It certainly is an effective tactic, because when they say something, it gets reported in multiple places as fact, only to be redacted and updated at the shortest possible interval in which it could be changed.

So next time we hear the Yankees claim that they have "a plan" for something, let's realize what that is has more to do with PR than it does with baseball.

A Look Back at the Off-Season

Since the Yankees seemingly can't beat the Red Sox on the field, let's take a look back at the last time the Bombers bested the Olde Towne Team - the 2008-2009 off-season. After kicking the tires on CC Sabathia, presumably to drive the price up for the Yankees, the Sox made a real push for Mark Teixeira, only to have him surprisingly sign with the Yankees after some shrewd and stealthy negotiating by Brian Cashman.

The Teixeira signing capped an unbelievable off-season spending spree for the Yankees. CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira were 3 of the top 4 free agents on the market (Manny Ramirez being the other). When all was said and done, the Yankees had committed 20 years and $423.5M to the three players.

Predictably, and perhaps somewhat deservedly, the Yankees took a lot of heat in the media and from the other clubs for spending what amounts to roughly the gross domestic product of the entirety of sub-Saharan Africa, and doing so in the midst of the country's worst economic crisis in more than seventy years. However, the Yankees operated within the context of the rules and were essentially leveraging the significant financial resources they have at their disposal.

Meanwhile, after losing out on Teixeira, the Sox made a series of lesser moves. Now I'm not one to believe that there's a media bias against the Yankees or towards the Red Sox. But, the way that the Sox off-season was framed as smart and economical in opposition to the Yankees gluttony was more than a bit hypocritical. Let's look at the Sox off-season moves with economic data courtesy of Cot's Baseball Contracts:

• John Smoltz signed 1 yr, $5.5M, with potential bonuses totalling an additional $5.5M

• Brad Penny signed 1 yr, $5M, with potential bonuses totalling an additional $3M

• Takashi Saito signed 1 yr, $1.5M, with potential bonuses totalling an additional $6M

• Josh Bard signed 1 yr, non-guaranteed. Reported value $1.7M, with an additional $0.8M bonus potential

• Junichi Tazawa, signed 3 yrs, $3.3M

• Rocco Baldelli signed 1 yr, $0.5M, with potential bonuses totalling an additional $7M

• Mark Kotsay re-signed 1 yr, $1.5M, with potential bonuses totalling an additional $1M

• Jason Varitek re-signed 1 yr $5M

All told, that's $23.3M guaranteed with bonus potential of an additional $25M. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what the Yankees paid out, but the potential $47.25M in 2009 for the Sox isn't all that far off from the $64.5M (signing bonuses included) the Yankees will pay their three free agent signees in 2009. These are some good high risk, high reward signings for the Sox. But what did they get for their money?

• In Smoltz and Penny, two pitchers coming off injury who combined for 122.2 IP in 2008 and a combined 5.43 ERA in the NL. Smoltz has yet to pitch; Penny has been average at best. And it's heavily rumored that Penny will soon be flipped for prospects.

• In Saito they picked up a good reliever who has been very effective in his career, but who has also been beset by injuries. So far this has worked out pretty well.

• Josh Bard, who the Sox traded very early in the 2006 season when they realized he couldn't catch a knuckler, had an even shorter stint this time. He was cut before Spring Training was over, leaving the Sox on the hook for $283K of his salary.

• Tazawa, who was signed through a potentially improper loophole in the Japanese system, is pitching at AA Portland.

• Baldelli has a lengthy injury history and has spent time on the DL this year. Ditto for Kotsay. Together they give the Sox two talented, but highly injury prone, back-up OF/DH/1B types.

• Varitek is 37. He hit .220/.313/.359 (73 OPS+) last year. He's doing better this year, buoyed by a SLG over .500, but his AVG and OBP are below league average.
  
  

Now the John Henry ownership group has done a tremendous job of squeezing every last penny out of the Red Sox brand and decrepit (charming?) Fenway Park. And good for them, it's remarkable that they've done so and it's commendable that they reinvest that money back into the team. However, before John Henry shoots his mouth off, making comments like "we have to be even more careful in deploying our resources"as he did in the wake of losing Teixeira, he might want to consider how few teams in MLB could afford to take on one or two of the above contracts, let alone all eight of them.

The Sox aren't some poor small market team. They may not have the financial resources of the Yankees, but aside from the Mets, Cubs, and possibly the Angels and Dodgers, no other MLB franchises can match the financial clout of the Red Sox. Perhaps the media should keep that in mind next time they want to laud the smart, shrewd signings made by the Sox this past off-season.

Game 27: In The Evening

With the Rays in town, I felt like a Ray Charles tune was the way to go. It's a bluesy number, which is also fitting because the Yankees have lost three straight. 

They are 3-8 within their division and tonight seems like as good of a time as any to start pushing that record in the right direction. Girardi will hand the ball to A.J. Burnett at 7:07, the fifth time in six starts this has happened following a loss. Four times it resulted in a Yankee victory. One of those times was on April 14th, when Burnett carried a no-hitter into the 7th inning against the Rays. 

Sitting at 12-16, the Rays actually make the 13-13 record the Bombers have accumulated look pretty good. Since they play in Tampa and have no fans, however, no one seems to be pushing the panic button on them yet. This is New York, so not only is the team under a magnifying glass, it's a sunny day and the media is trying to angle it juuuuust right.

If you want to read doom and gloom about the Yanks, you're probably in the wrong place. There's enough of that out there and there's really no use getting all bent out of shape over something that's supposed to be fun. We can only offer you level-headed analysis, immature photoshops, drinking advice and a look on the bright side. 

Deader Horse: A-Fraud Or Swine Flu?

Let me first say that neither of these stories are anywhere near as annoying as hearing about the economy every ten fucking seconds. It's one gigantic self-fulfilling prophecy that bleeds into every facet of life, including sports. The difference between that and the two things in the headline is that the economy actually affects everyone, and the coverage is not wildly out of proportion. 

Nothing that has come out about A-Rod has been remotely current nor does it alter the life course of anyone besides himself and his immediate family. We are talking about him supposedly taking steroids/HGH, banging strippers, leaving somewhat below average gratuity at Hooters and tipping pitches to opposing batters in games that were essentially already decided.

We find it upsetting or salacious or unfair or distasteful, but all at a certain distance. The same distance we use to view celebrity exploits, watch reality shows and gossip about co-workers. It's superficial bullshit that's not concretely correlated to your own life. 

Despite what every news organization on Earth would like you to think, Swine Flu isn't relevant to your life, either. There are roughly 290 confirmed cases in the U.S.  Your odds of contracting it (let alone dying from it) are something like a million to one. There's a significantly better chance you are a regular reader of this blog, for fuck's sake.

The only reason people talk about it is because, like "A-Rod", it grabs people's attention in a headline. Welcome to the internet, the home of 10 second attention spans where your stories better be eye-opening right off the bat. And a sure recipe for that is to include a disease named after something to do with animals. 

Mad Cow Disease, Monkey Pox, Bird Flu, Hoof and Mouth Disease and now the Swine Flu. Am I missing any? They haven't even found one pig with it yet. If they had been calling it the "N1H1 Flu" all along, do you honestly think the entire country would be aware of it? Attention Doctors: If you want to raise the awareness of a certain disease... just name it after an animal. A few suggestions:

• Deer Measles
• Canine SARS
• Horse Herpes
• Toad Rubella
• Sheep AIDS
• Spider Meningitis
• Duck Lupus
• Fish Trichinosis
• Bullfrog Fever
• Goat Gout

Pick any of those (especially Horse Herpes) and it will be a household name in two weeks. 

-----

Here is the reason Swine Flu is much more annoying to me: The result of the eventual saturation of coverage is a country who is fucking paranoid about something that is literally a one in a million shot. About 63,000 people in this country die from the regular flu every year. So far from Swine Flu? One toddler. 

On the other hand, now that the A-Rod firestorm is now reaching it's saturation point, people are starting get tired of it. We get it. He's phony and insecure and a cheap tipper (in more ways that one). Let's move on. It's putting things in perspective as opposed to blowing them out of proportion. 

Informal poll time! What say you, Fackers? 

A-Rod or S-Flu? Cheaters or Pigs? Clubhouse Cancers or Contagious Viruses? Character Assassination or Fear Mongering? 

[Note: I don't know that I would have the same perspective if I hadn't been reading Craig from Shysterball's takes on the Selena Roberts book. If you haven't heard his opinion on the matter, do yourself a favor and follow that link.]