Another Point Of View On Damon

Good morning Fackers. While the great left field/Johnny Damon debate rages on, it's a far cry from last year at this time when the pilot light had all but burned out on the Hot Stove. After a gluttonous pre-Christmas spending spree that saw the Yankees land CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira, we were all fat and happy. There was some talk about whether Nick Swisher or Xavier Nady would be the right fielder, or whether Melky Cabrera or Brett Gardner would be the center fielder, but for the most part we were sitting around waiting for Spring Training to start.

The biggest topic of conversation at this time last year centered not around the team for the upcoming season, or even the previous season, but upon the manager that had departed the team more than a year prior. As news of Joe Torre's and Tom Verducci's The Yankee Years began making the rounds, much of the chatter centered on the dirt Torre dished on his twelve years as the Yankee manager. Inside stories that had previously not been discussed much, if at all, garnered newfound media attention. One such story was about Johnny Damon, and I was reminded of it yesterday.

In the morning, Bob Klapisch of The Record had a story suggesting that Damon might just retire if he doesn't receive a suitable contract offer. Klapisch cited "a friend of Damon" who said "Johnny is in complete family mode right now", implying that retirement is a real possibility. The Klapisch story inspired a score of other blog postings on the topic, and was later refuted by Dave O'Brien of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who tweeted that a friend of Damon (presumably a different friend than the one Klapisch consulted) stated that Damon is not considering retirement.

I'm inclined to believe O'Brien's friend of Johnny, and think that whatever friend Klapisch spoke to (Jon Heyman maybe?) is just trying to apply what little leverage Scott Boras and Damon have left after grossly overestimating the market for his services. But if there is some validity to Klapisch's speculation it wouldn't be the first time Damon has considered retirement. And if we take The Yankees Years at face value, the results weren't very pretty the first time.

During the 2006-7 off-season, Damon allegedly did not work out at all. As he may be now, he was very much "in family mode", and reported to camp out of shape and somewhat disinterested in baseball. Early in camp he approached Brian Cashman and Torre, stating he was contemplating retirement. He left camp for a few days to ponder his future, but eventually returned. But his late start hampered him. It took him some time to round himself into shape, leading to nagging injuries and poor performance throughout the early part of the season.

Torre further speculated that Damon still wasn't completely committed to playing baseball, and The Yankee Years suggests that a disinterested Damon lost much of his characteristic enthusiasm in the clubhouse and on the field. It further states that Damon's performance and attitude drew the ire of several teammates, notably the "old guard", including one unnamed teammate who approached Torre "near tears" suggesting that Damon had to go for the good of the team.

I'm not suggesting that all of that is the gospel truth, but in general terms, I'm willing to believe it's mostly correct. Verducci has direct quotes from Damon about the situation at that time, and nothing in his statements denies out and out that this was an issue. Damon's current contract situation, or lack thereof, makes it something of a different kettle of fish this time around. But there is some precedent for an uncommitted Damon reporting to camp, and if The Yankee Years is to be believed, I don't think that's an experience the organization wants to relive.

Another thing to consider are comments made by Brian Cashman early in the off-season. Speaking in general terms about free agents, Cashman speculated that not only do players not want to take pay cuts, but that they're less likely to take them from their previous team. It's an easily understandable theory, and if correct, I imagine the potential is greater for such a player to be a malcontent when returning to his previous team than it is when joining a new team. Buster Olney speculated that such a thought process might have played a role in the Yankees' December negotiations with Damon.

None of this is meant to disparage Johnny Damon. I'm of the opinion that he would be helpful to the 2010 Yankees, and if Jerry Hairston's comments to Jim Bowden on XM last night are to be believed, the Yankees are still in on him. However, virtually all of the discussion regarding Damon and the Yankees has revolved around salary - and salary is likely the biggest issue on the table. But, if the recent past is any indication, when it comes to Damon there may be more issues to consider other than if there's enough loose change in the couch cushions to pay his salary.

Don't Worry About The Yanks, Ron

Good morning, Fackers. Whether the gap between the highest and lowest grossing teams in baseball is widening, narrowing or staying the say depends largely on where you stand. To wit, here is Ron Gardnehire talking about his Twins in relation to the Yankees:

"When you look at the Yankees, their lineup stretches seven and eight-deep of all-stars," said Gardenhire, who was speaking at the Quality Inn in Winona on Tuesday as part of the Twins' annual Winter Caravan. "We're getting closer to that now. You look at our lineup, and we're almost to the point now where we've got six or seven guys that are all-star-caliber people."

Last year, Minnesota had 5 players who got more than 350 plate appearances and had an OPS+ of 91 or lower. The Yankees, on the other hand, had 9 players with over 430 plate appearances and Melky Cabrera was the least potent, with a 99 OPS+. The Twins brought in shortstop J.J. Hardy (career OPS+ 95), but I don't think many would consider him "all-star-caliber" although he did sneak onto the NL roster in 2007.

How about pitching? The Yankees team ERA was a quarter of a run lower than the Twins' last year, and the Yanks also picked up Javier Vazquez, who would probably compete with Nick Blackburn for the top spot in Minnesota's rotation.

I know Gardenhire is in the business of being optimistic about his team, but it's pretty clear that the Yankees were a whole lot better than the Twins last year and the gap, if anything, is widening. The Yankees have just as many resources as they've always had and Brain Cashman has been deploying them awfully efficiently as of late.

Peter Gammons notes this fact in an article on MLB.com this morning when he says "general manager Brian Cashman has turned his club into an efficient organizational model that has depth running through the system".

Rob Neyer, riffing off that article from Gammons talks about "the plight of small market franchises" and explains that there aren't enough good markets to house all 30 MLB teams. But Minneapolis is one of those good markets. It has 3.5 million people - making it the 13th largest media market in the country - and they are moving into a new ballpark next year.

The important thing to note is that the Twins don't have the same problem that the Rays, Orioles or Blue Jays do. They don't need to close to gap between them and the Yankees. They play in a division that has 4 small to moderate payroll teams and one current big spender that's in the process of coming back down to earth (Detroit). They haven't had much success in the playoffs despite winning their division 5 times in the past 8 years, but that has more to do with luck that the disparity between them and the Yanks.

With Target Field set to open this April and the walleye-on-a-stick scheduled to hit the fry-o-lators shortly thereafter, the Twins are primed to continue their dominance of the AL Central. The new revenue will certainly help them compete with the likes of the Tigers, White Sox and the Indians, but they are going to have to put a huge chunk of that money into action if they are going to get discernibly "closer" to the Yankees. Locking up Joe Mauer long term would certainly be a good start.

Witnessing A Win

Over at FanGraphs, Rays fan R.J. Anderson asks an interesting question (or rather, a couple of them):

I’ve looked over the Yankees’ gamelogs for attendance numbers as well as the Rays’. The one thing that always stands out is that people go to the games against the Red Sox while nobody goes to the games against the Orioles. The Red Sox were the second best team in the division last year with the Yankees and Rays flanking them. Without doubt, they are and have been a superior team to the Orioles for a while now. Ultimately, we go to games to be entertained and experience joy, so why don’t more people go to Orioles games?

It would seem that a win is more enjoyable to experience than a defeat. I’d rather go to a Rays game where they win than one where they lose. And, I’m not sure if I went to those games against the Washington Nationals last season because subconsciously I wanted to see victories, but I suppose I could’ve been on a losing strike without really knowing it. If I asked a thousand Yankee fans which team they’d rather pay to see live, 95% would say the Red Sox and the other 5% would make vulgar comments about the folks from Boston. But is this rational?

I'm not sure what sort of a Yankee fan would make vulgar comments about the fine population of Boston, but I would personally find that both distasteful and offensive.

Anyhow, If you grant that attending any win is more enjoyable than attending any loss then, no, it's not rational in an economic decision making sense. The tickets to Red Sox games are much more expensive on the secondary market and the probability of witnessing a win is decidedly lower than if you go to a game against the Orioles.

Anderson supposes it might come down to the "hedonic value" of a win over the Red Sox. A win feels much better against the Sawx but I think we must also assume that a loss feels worse. And people are largely loss averse - meaning they would prefer to avoid losses even if the alternative involves the possibility of reaping gains. Prospect theory, which the concept of loss aversion comes from, contends that this is because losing something hurts more than winning the equivalent.

So why are people not loss averse when it comes to attending sporting events? Certainly a loss in playoff game is going to hurt more to witness than a regular season defeat, but the demand for the postseason is still sky-high.

I think the perceived importance of the game is a major influence on the desirability of attending and during the regular season, the opponent has the most direct impact on that importance. At any point in the season, games against the Red Sox feel like they have playoff implications for the Rays or Yanks. They might not matter at the time, but there is the notion that they may be significant in the future. The history behind any rivalry adds to the feeling of significance as well. These factors generally culminate with an energized crowd and a charged atmosphere and that's ultimately what attracts people to games against good teams.

I personally don't think it's worth the extra money to see the Red Sox when they are in town. I'm content to go to a game regardless of who it's against - I just like sitting outside, drinking a few beers and watching the game unfold. I don't worry too much about individual wins and losses - not much more than when I'm watching at home on the couch. It's always better to see your team win, but the outcome of the came usually isn't enough to taint the experience. But not everyone is like that.

The costs of going to baseball games extend beyond the money for the tickets, concessions, tolls, parking or public transportation. Fans give up precious hours of their life as well and in exchange for those, many would like to see a game that seems significant.

At the end of the post, Anderson asks, "Would you pay more money to guarantee that you are attending a victory?". I don't think so, I can't sit through a game I recorded on the DVR if I know who won. I'd rather just pay the regular price and see what happens.

Yanks Settle With Gaudin, Logan

The Yankees settled two potential arbitration cases yesterday, agreeing to terms with pitchers Chad Gaudin and Boone Logan.

Gaudin was acquired from San Diego for cash on August 6th last season. He went 2-0 with a 3.43 ERA in 11 appearances, 6 starts, for the Yankees, and worked one inning of mop up duty against the Angels in the ALCS. He has an outside shot at the fifth starter spot in Spring Training, but realistically is battling Sergio Mitre for the long man role. Gaudin also has experience in short relief, and has fared well historically against right handed batters. Gaudin settled for $2.95M, a raise over last year's $2M salary. His deal also includes innings based incentive clauses.

Logan was acquired from the Braves in the Javier Vazquez trade, the second time in as many season's that he's been included in trade with Vazquez. Logan is a candidate to make the club as a second lefty out of the bullpen, and given Joe Girardi's love of matching up, Logan will likely head north with the team, despite mediocre numbers over the course of his career. Logan settled for $590K, after making $475K last year.

By settling with Gaudin and Logan, the Yankees have no pending arbitration cases.

Hairston Signs With Padres

Good morning Fackers. Yet another left field/bench option came off the board yesterday, as Jerry Hairston joined his brother Scott in San Diego by signing a one year $2.125M deal with the Padres. According to Buster Olney, the Yankees never even made Hairston an offer, despite reports last week that the club was in "serious talks" with him.

Acquired at the trade deadline last year, Hairston was a useful player for the Yankees, capable of playing each infield and outfield position. Losing Hairston certainly isn't going to ruin the 2010 season. The Yankees have four young utility infielder options on their 40 man roster in Ramiro Pena, Kevin Russo, Reegie Corona, and Eduardo Nunez. And even if the slim chance of Johnny Damon returning doesn't pan out, there are several viable left field platoon options on the free agent market in Reed Johnson, Xavier Nady, and Rocco Baldelli.

What doesn't exist on the free agent market is a supersub utility player with the defensive versatility of Hairston. Such a player isn't a must have for the Yankees, but given their roster construction, it is a nice luxury to have.

The Yankees figure to have a four man bench next season. One spot will be earmarked for Francisco Cervelli as the back up catcher. For better or worse, a second spot has to be reserved for Rule 5 pick Jamie Hoffmann, who currently profiles as the fourth outfielder. A third spot will go to a utility infielder, likely one of the four above with Pena and Russo appearing to be the leading candidates at present. That leaves just one spot, which will likely be filled by another outfielder, most likely a right handed platoon partner for Brett Gardner and/or Curtis Granderson.

However, assuming the Yankees elect to keep Hoffmann and sign another outfielder for that fourth bench spot, they are left with a single utility infielder on the roster. Given the quality of the Yankees' starting infield, this isn't a major concern. But, Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter are two of the three most valuable position players on the team - if not the two most valuable. They will be 34 and 35, respectively, on Opening Day. While both should be in the line up daily, having a second infielder on the bench gives the Yankees the option of resting both, rather than choosing to rest just one, in blowout games, on turf, day games after night games, etc. It's not a situation that should arise often, but it does arise on occasion, as evidenced by Jose Molina's cameo at third base last year.

Both Russo and Pena have minimal outfield experience, but I can't imagine the Yankees carrying one of them as a second infielder in that fourth bench spot because they feel either could also serve as realistic outfield option.

As we saw last season, the bench changes over the course of the year. Hairston and Eric Hinske were the two main contributors off the bench last season and both were mid-season pick ups. Whatever team leaves Tampa in early April assuredly won't be the same that finishes up in October. But for the time being the Yankees have lost a solid, versatile bench option in Jerry Hairston. Best of luck to him in San Diego.

Back From A Boring Weekend

Good morning, Fackers. On Friday afternoon, Joe called this past weekend the best one in sports. There are some other candidates, namely the first weekend of the NCAA tournament, but I would probably give my vote to the Divisional Round of the NFL playoffs. There are four games on, which start late Saturday afternoon and end at a reasonable time on Sunday giving you a healthy amount of meaningful, intense football to consume. Well, on paper anyway.

Just like the games Wildcard Round, there were three unwatchable tilts that were decided before the first half was over and the one game that was close featured only 10 points in the first three quarters. The average margin of victory through the first 8 games of the playoffs this season has been 17.1 points with only the two aforementioned match-ups being decided by less than one touchdown. Four games have been decided by 30 points or more. Last year, no playoff games were that lopsided.

According to this study, we've watched roughly 88 minutes of postseason football action thus far and I've venture to guess that about 10 of those have been worth paying attention to.

I'm not sure if other Yankee fans can relate, but I've felt detached from the NFL season this year. It was quite the opposite from 2008, the Giants had started off the defense of their Super Bowl victory 4-0 when the Yankees were clearing out their lockers. There was real excitement surrounding that team and although they bumbled a Monday night game against the Browns, they cruised to 11-1 before things fell apart. And when the Giants lost to the Eagles in the Divisional Round, it really hurt.

When the Yanks won the World Series this year, the Giants were already halfway through their season. At that point, their stock had already risen and fell. They were 5-3 after losing 3 in a row and ended up closing out the season a meager 3-5 including two disgraceful losses by more than 30 points in Weeks 16 & 17. They had been eliminated from the playoffs for three weeks so at that point, it didn't really matter.

Now that were halfway through a forgettable postseason and I couldn't care less about how the rest of it turns out. I just hope the Vikings lose this Sunday so we are spared the agony of the two week festival that will be known as "Favreganza" leading up to the Super Bowl.

There's good news, however. It's hard to believe, but pitchers and catchers report exactly one month from today. The Yankees' full squad will join six days later. It's more symbolic than anything since workouts in Tampa don't offer much entertainment to fans - even ones who attend them in person - but there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

Divisional Weekend - Sunday Games

Out of the six games that have been contested in this year's playoffs, only one final score has ended up within one touchdown. Here's to hoping today's slate is more entertaining. Onto the games:

Cowboys (+3) at Vikings, Sunday 1PM EST, FOX: Who do you hate more? The Cowgirls or girly man Brett Favre?

Can't both teams lose?

Many people think that this game will be the best matchup of the weekend, evidenced by the fact that tickets are the most expensive of all 4 Divisional games. However, this can also be attributed to the fact that Minneapolis is the largest market of all 4 home teams - imagine that?

Wisconsin native Tony Romo faces his childhood idol Favre. Favre is back in the Playoffs. Adrian Peterson, the Purple Jesus and a childhood diehard Cowboys fan, attempts to reach 100 yards for the first time in 2 months. Peterson had two 2 TDs last year in the Playoffs against the Eagles, but that wasn't enough to counter Tavaris Jackson's ineffectiveness. Will Favre under center change things for the Vikes? Perhaps. Or perhaps he will play like he did at the end of the regular season that resulted in Minnesota gaining a first round bye only because of the fact that Dallas beat the Eagles. The rest will certainly help the antiquated Favre.

The Cowboys Can Win If: On offense, Felix Jones continues his scorching rushing attack and Marion Barber III, the Minnesota native and former Golden Gopher star, can be effective. This would enable Dallas' 3 headed monster of Barber, Choice and Jones to overcome Minnesota's 2nd ranked run defense. Tony Romo also needs to play like he did last week instead of postseasons past. On defense, DeMarcus Ware, Anthony Spencer and Jay Ratliff must put pressure on Favre and force the old man into committing at least 2 turnovers. Also, they have to avoid giving up the big play like they have done against the Saints and Eagles in recent weeks. Kicker Shaun Suisham must not melt in big games like he did for the Redskins.

The Vikings Can Win If: Favre doesn't play like his age or like Dave Shinskie from Boston College. They guard against the run like they have all season. Force Romo into 2 turnovers.

Prediction: Romo has 1 TD to Miles Austin and another to Martellus Bennett to accompany his 250 yards and 1 INT and Barber runs in another one. The Purple Jesus runs for one TD and Favre throws another to Visanthe Shiancoe. Wade Phillips keeps his job.

Cowboys: 24
Vikings: 17

New York Jets (+8) at San Diego Chargers, Sunday 4:40 PM EST, CBS: OK, the Jets, were impressive the past 2 weekends in their dual beatdown of the Bengals the past 2 weeks. And the Jets have the best defensive player in the NFL despite what the idiotic Associated Press says about the matter. And former USC QB Mark Sanchez is returning to SoCal. So it seems like a surefire Jet victory, correct?

But those were the Bungals, who have only one postseason win since 1991, and not the hottest team in the NFL entering the playoffs.

But Darelle Revis cannot cover every inch of the field and all of the Chargers' talented receivers, including Antonio Gates, Vincent Jackson and Malcolm Floyd at the same time. Not to mention LaDanian Tomlinson ("Fake LT") and Darren Sproles coming out of the backfield.

But Mark Sanchez is still a rookie QB and could possibly be worse off as a result of returning home.

How the Jets Can Win: Blitz Phillip Rivers like they have blitzed opposing QBs all year. Focus on the run and limit Mark Sanchez’s pass attempts.

How the Chargers Can Win: Pressure Mark Sanchez and force him to turn the ball over. Take advantage of the short field to counter the Jets’ league’s best overall defense and best pass defense. Rivers must be protected and not throw the ball to Darrelle Revis’s side of the field. Utilize the screen like they have all season to beat the Jets blitzing and

Prediction: For the Jets, Thomas Jones runs for a score and Feely kicks a FG. Helped with a short field as a result of a couple Sanchez INTs, Fake LT and Antonio Gates each score a TD and Nate Kaeding adds 2 FGs to send the Bolts to Indianapolis for the AFC Championship game.

Chargers: 20
Jets: 10

Enjoy the games.

Divisional Weekend - Saturday Games

Okay Fackers. Last week I went 2-2, correctly predicting both AFC Wildcard Weekend matchups but brutally butchering the NFC tilt. 2-2 isn't so bad I guess. I mean Adam Schefter went 1-3. Mike Greenberg went 0-4 as did Bill Simmons. Eric Allen was the only "expert" on ESPN did better than me. Some of you told me that I should "stick to baseball." Well should Adam Schefter find another job? Should Greenie resign? (Trick question, Mike is absolutely awful and should resign for a lack of sports knowledge that is not remotely compensated for by humor).

Despite the Giants not being involved and the fact that 75% of the games were certifiable blowouts, I think that a good number of you Fackers were pleased with the results--namely the Jets winning and the Patriots gettin' knawked the fack out by the Ravens. Let's hope that the Cowboys lose this weekend.

Well, I'm back offering more NFL Playoffs content. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment. Or maybe I have fun writing these posts.

In my opinion, Divisional Weekend is the best weekend of the sporting year. Two entire days of football, wherein the Super Bowl pretenders are knocked out and the heavyweights - the #1 and #2 seeds - make their postseason debuts. We get to speculate about whether the top seeds should have rested their starters in the final weeks of the regular season and sought health at the expense of momentum. I certainly can't wait until 4:30 on Saturday.

The elements do not figure to be be a factor this week as 3 of the games will be in domed stadiums and the other will be in San Diego. Certainly not what I think of when I think of playoff football. Regardless, it would be difficult for the games not to be better than last weekend's slate. Unlike last weekend, we are going to split the posts up. Here are Saturday's games:

Arizona Cardinals (+7) at New Orleans Saints, Saturday 4:30 PM EST. The Cardinals are coming off a thrilling 51-45 overtime victory in which a defensive touchdown ironically ended the highest scoring NFL postseason game ever. Go figure. Some, including the aforementioned Mike Greenberg say that the Cardinals will be exhausted and mentally drained from the victory and the "long" flight from Arizona to Nawlins. I say bullshit. If the Saints lose, they'll say they were rusty coming off their first round bye. Rest, or lack thereof, is thoroughly overrated.

Meanwhile, the Saints, who were 13-0, before losing their final three contests, look to get back on the winning track so that they can win their first ever Super Bowl title. Incidentally, no team has ever lost its final 3 games and won the Super Bowl. If Brees, who was screwed in the MVP voting, plays like he did during the Saints' first 14 games, we could see a shootout of epic proportions at the Superdome akin to what we saw in Glendale last weekend. Brees finished the regular season with 4,388 yards (6th in the NFL) and led the Saints to a league-leading average of 31.9 points per game. (Interestingly, Cardinals QB Antrel Rolle was quoted as saying he'd rather face Saints QB Drew Brees any day of the week than face Packers QB Aaron Rodgers again.)

Cardinals WR Anquan Boldin, who missed the Wild Card matchup, did not practice Wednesday and is questionable.

How The Cardinals Can Win: Exploit the Saints' 26th-ranked pass defense. Also, they will need to replicate their running game that they had against the Packers (Nawlins was particularly vulnerable to the run in their final 3 games). Follow the Cowboys' gameplan and blitz the shit out of Brees and limit him to underneath passes. DO NOT GET BEAT BY THE BIG PLAY!

How The Saints Can Win: Big plays from Brees. Blitz the shit out of Warner and force picks.

My Prediction: I think this game will be a proverbial barnburner that comes down to the last possession. Offense rules. Kurt Warner, the surefire future Canton inductee, drives the Cardinals down the field for a Neil Rackers field goal with 20 seconds left.

Cardinals: 38
Saints: 35

Ravens (+7) at Colts, Saturday 8:15 PM EST: This is a game of contradictions. Current Baltimore team versus former Baltimore team. Top seed versus the lowest seed. The Ravens, in my opinion are undoubtedly the hottest team in the NFL. The Colts, au contraire, are the most rested team as a result of not having played their starters in 3.5 weeks.

The Colts are led by three-time MVP QB Peyton Manning (Peyton won the award this season to join Brett Favre as the only three-time winner of the sport's most prestigious award). Under center for the Ravens is Joe Flacco - he who owned a stat line of 4/10, 34 yards (tied with Miami's Bob Griese for the fewest in a playoff win in the Super Bowl era) over the fackin' Pats.

The Ravens had the 5th rated run defense; the Colts had the 24th rated run defense. The Ravens, led by the diminutive yet ravishing Ray Rice, finished 5th in the NFL in rushing; the Colts finished 32 of 32 in the same stat. As a matter of fact, the only similarity of the two teams is the relative inexperience of their head coaches - John Harbaugh is in his second year at the helm of the Ravens (and has two postseason appearences); Colts boss man Jim Caldwell, who has been critiqued by more Americans than President Obama over the last month, is a rookie.

So Who Will Win?

The Colts Can Win If: They are able to stop Ray Rice. As simple as that.

The Ravens Can Win If: Ray Rice runs wild. And Manning throws 3 INTs.

Prediction: Earlier in the week I was telling everyone who would listen that the Ravens would advance to the AFC Championship game. I was only one of the few who picked the Ravens over the Pats and I have a special affinity for Ray Rice because I picked him in the late rounds of my fantasy draft and he ended up one of the top Fantasy RBs. However, after looking at the matchups, I am not so sure anymore. Mainly, I am not too confident in Joe Flacco after the numbers he put up in Foxborough. Manning throws for 300 with 2 TDs with Addai running in another. Rice plays well with 140 combined yards and a TD, but not well enough to compensate for Flacco's turnovers.

Colts: 24
Ravens: 17

Come back on Sunday for the other two breakdowns. Enjoy the games!

Sláinte,
Joe

Vazquez's Pitch Selection

One of the things we touched upon towards the end of our post about Javier Vazquez's clutch ability was his pitch selection in 2009. Here is what Tyler Kepner said shortly after the trade was completed:

Scouts believe Vazquez’s changeup improved a lot with Atlanta last season, giving him a second swing-and-miss pitch to go with his curveball.

A quick look at the Pitch Type data at FanGraphs shows that his fastball, slider and change were all significantly better in terms of run value while his slider was about the same.

Today, SG at over at the Replacement Level Yankees Weblog took a look at his pitch selection over the last three years in terms of quantity, run value, velocity, strike percentage, and break. For the first time in his career in 2009, Vazquez threw fewer than 50% fastballs while using each off-speed pitch slightly more than in 2008. Last year he also threw significantly more sliders and curveballs than in 2007.

How much of his standout 2009 campaign you want to attribute to this is up to you, but it looks like mixing in more of his off-speed stuff was beneficial. Anecdotally and with small sample size caveats, his leverage numbers were the same as usual - worse as it increased.

There's a lot of data over there, so be sure to check it out and peruse the comments for some other cracks at explaining what's going on.

Re: Yesterday

There was a lot of interesting discussion here and at Joe Posnanski's blog about Mark McGwire and A-Rod yesterday and since I was away from my computer for the better part of it, I wanted to address a couple of things before we move on.

First, thanks to Joe for responding my post. He's truly one of the good guys - humble and self-effacing in an business whose most successful participants are usually sorely lacking in both traits. There aren't very many writers who would take the time to answer criticism like that and do so with without taking it personally. People say "agree to disagree" often, but it's not easy to concede a point. Especially to someone you don't know over the internet.

While both Craig and Joe used the term "double standard" as a way to describe the difference between Joe's reaction to the two interviews, that was a length I purposely didn't go to in the post. I made sure to mention that I was taking him out of context before I compared the two quotes. Like commenter NaOH, I don't think it makes him hypocritical or duplicitous to have somewhat contradictory reactions to two things I thought were fairly similar. Joe thought they were quite different, which is totally understandable.

Life isn't neat and tidy. There is a whole lot of gray area, particularly when it comes to steroids in sports. People are distributed throughout the continuum in their opinions about how much PEDs help players and how much using them is a violation of the game. And each individual player carries their own set of circumstances. These issues all operate on sliding scales, not on/off switches.

As writers, we try hard to make points and gravitate towards unequivocal terms in doing so. Readers don't want to waste their time reading wishy-washy opinions and writers don't generally waste their time typing up their thoughts on issues that they don't feel strongly about. As a result, there are bound to be any number of contradictions in a person's body of work over the course of time. If anyone cared enough to rummage through my archives, I'm sure there would be plenty of them there as well.

Consistency is largely overrated. The world is in a constant state of flux and while it's popular for politicians to rip each other for waffling, I think we are all better off trying looking at each situation as inherently different instead of assuming everything fits into the same rubric.

The Man Responds

Joe Posnanski took the time to address my previous post about A-Rod & McGwire. Like everything else he writes, it's worth reading.

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.

Today In Meaningless Clichés

To be fair, Anthony McCarron wrote this yesterday, but that's not going to stop me from making fun of him for it this morning, Fackers:

They are looking for a right-handed hitter. Sounds like Johnny Damon hasn’t got a shot unless he’s willing to play on the seriously cheap, which isn't likely to happen. So who do you like? Reed Johnson? Jerry Hairston, Jr.? Xavier Nady?

Me, I think they need to add someone, preferably a get-the-uniform-dirty type. But I also think they ought to give Brett Gardner a real chance.

Me, I'd like a keeps-his-uniform-clean-so-he-doesn't-have-to-wash-it-very-often type. Saves money for the team, to say nothing of the benefits for the environment, you know?

I know this "dirty uniform" tag gets tossed around a lot, but what does it actually mean? Someone who steals bases? A guy who is willing to slide to catch the ball? Are extra points awarded for grass stains? (They are harder to remove after all...)

Is it someone who sits Indian-style in the on-deck circle and makes fucking sand castles? Or is it just another meaningless moniker for a scrappy, gritty, feisty, battling, pugnacious, rough-and-tumble bench grunt who plays with a chip on his shoulder (otherwise known as someone who isn't good enough to land a starting job somewhere else)?

McCarron doesn't elaborate on what he means by this at all. He doesn't even offer up even one example of a uniform dirtier that the Yankees could sign. In fact, he sort of implies that Brett Gardner isn't sufficient in his garb grubbying, thus necessitating the acquisition of another shirt stainer.

Is this filthy enough for you, Anthony? Does Reed Johnson meet your standards of uncleanliness?