Yeah, there seem to be some times lately when Chass is out to lunch. I recall an article a couple of weeks ago saying they should have signed Pierre (and I believe citing his ability to run down balls in the outfield). I've stopped reading him for anything but entertainment.

I don't get Murray chAss, sometimes he can come across as being so smart then I read articles like these and I don't get where he bases his 'opinions' on because they definitely aren't facts. BTW, shouldn't his opinions be on a separate op-ed page?

Bernie Williams was valuable because of the things reporters have no clue about. He drew lots of walks and hit a lot of doubles. He was near or at the top of the class for CFs for almost his entire career, but nobody noticed. He's better than quite a few guys in the HOF, but isn't likely to go in any time soon.

I am not sure if he would believe that Johnny Damon's best OPS season would be the 10th best of Bernie's career. Bernie is definitely underrated. Getting a .900 OPS from a CF is pretty rare, and doing it 7 years in a row is outstanding.

One thing about Bernie, though, is that he didn't always play 155+ games a year...

rsmith51,

Great stat. I've often wondered why Bernie doesn't get more credit than he does. Ok, he's not Mantle or DiMaggio, but well a lot of people in the HOF aren't Mantle or DiMaggio either. I can't think of any other CF I'd rather have had in the mid to late 90s (though I'm sure I'm being subjective).

Ok, doing a bit of looking things up, there's of course Griffey, I thought his injury problems started a bit earlier than they actually did.

I don't see how Johnny Damon could possibly be better than Williams. Even if he hit .300 and played good defense, he would have to sustain that level for 7 freaking years to match Bernie in Yankee "royalty", not to pass him. This is a stupid article. Just because he didn't lead the league in HRs and RBIs doesn't mean that he is not extremely valuable.

Mantle and DiMaggio didn't always log full seasons, either. At least Bernie never got himself infected from a bogus vitamin shot, nor did he ever impale himself with his own golf clubs.

I know a lot of people agree with Chass's assessment that he never deserved the gold glove. And maybe I'm wrong, but don't defensive metrics show Bernie to be a great defender during that period.

Bernie was as good as anyone from 1995 - '03. Both tails of his career were at or below league average both offensively and defensively however. He wasn't on the level of Joe D., Mantle or Combs in terms of his top eight seasons; very few players have been. But Bernie was very good. Could we say that he is now part of a "Big Four" rather than a "Trinity" without defaming DiMaggio, Mantle and Combs? I think we can. Was Chase way off base in his opinions? I don't think he was. Bernie may be borderline but he isn't a Hall of Famer. Bernie is one of the 10 great Yankee players of my lifetime. I can live with him being recognized for what he was without morphing him into something he wasn't.

I found Chase's column to be an objective brief appraisal of the Yankees Centerfield position over the years. There will be enough fawning over Bernie in the months to come. Chase is still better than the invective and hyperbole spewers who pollute the landscape on a daily basis with their inane scribblings . I don't always agree with him but I always read him. Christ, at least he writes in English.

That's Chass btw. Spell checker issue.

Did he really debunk the centerfield myth though? I mean how many franchises can say they had three legends of such magnitude roam center for them? Here's one for the baseball history guys: What other teams have three like Combs, Joe D, and Mickey? And Bernie just a level below?

I really hate it when writers have nothing to write about, so they dream up a hatchet piece. This takes the cake. Chass has been anti-Yankee for years, but this winter it seems as if he's going out of his way to criticize them. The above-mentioned Pierre piece was laughable it was so stupid, and this one is uncalled for. F Chass.

And, funny, I was delighted to see a pro-Eli Manning piece in the paper this morning, just before I saw Chass's. I guess the Times can't get everything right.

Since Combs retired at age 36 and Bernie's 36 now, it's easy to compare their careers. Bernie's OPS+ is 127, Combds 126. They both are about the same above the league in range factor over their careers, though Combs played the corners a lot more in his last year or two.
Bernie played alomst 600 more regular season games than Combs, and played in 120 post-season games compared to Combs 16.
Bernie therefore has much more value over his career simply because he had the same numbers as Combs, but has them for more than 150% as many games.

I was reading through the list of the best quotes of the year from bbp, I wish I had seen this one before.

"The Yankees have that guy [Tony] Womack [a second baseman] playing left field. If I can't play that position at least as well as he can, I'll hang up the spikes right now."
--outfielder and future Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson, on why he still feels he can play (San Francisco Chronicle)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4674

I've recounted this anecdote before but I think it's interesting to see where Chass is coming from. During a rain delay in the late '70s, Phil Rizzuto was interviewing Chass (then at the Daily News?)and, typical of Scooter, asked him what it must mean to him to cover the Yankees on a daily basis since he's a born and bred New Yorker. Chass gave Scooter a baleful look, paused, and then hit him with this: "It doesn't mean that much, really. I was a Dodgers fan growing up. I hated the Yankees. Still do." The double take from Rizzuto was priceless. Anyway, Chass is no fan of the Yankees. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I'm sure that with the Times part-owning the Red Sox, still waters run deep these days for Murray.

I thought Chass's thesis was that the Yankees have not had a truly great centerfielder since the three he mentioned as great. He defined greatness as achieving their career numbers. He then argued that none of the successors to those three approached their numbers or accomplishments. The succession of greatness therefore ended at Mantle. I think he made his case. There has been no continuation of that line. Johnny Damon is not the latest in an uninterrupted line of greatness.

Ignoring 1968 through 1992 (which represents 14 out of our current 80 year run from 1925) we've been pretty darn close though with Bernie. I don't think the Yankees have to take a back seat to anyone in terms of their tradition of great centerfielders.

in other words: for the majority of the 20th and 21st centuries, the Yankees have had 3 legends and one borderline superstar playing center. Again, the myth seems all too real.

As many of you did, I've followed Bernie his whole career, and it's been fascinating to watch him develop into first a good, then a great player, even though he had such poor baseball instincts. Going against the "common wisdom", he appeared to develop plate discipline as he matured -- maybe a teachable skill to some? -- and realized he couldn't steal bases despite his speed, so he stopped trying. Although he never got a good jump on the ball, his pure athleticism in CF allowed him to catch up to some gappers during his prime. Finally, the power from the left side came late, but when it finally arrived in the late 1990s, he became a great offensive force, hitting for avg, power, OBP%.

Bernie, thanks for the great years in CF. Let's hope you get some of that bat magic back as a DH!

The Times sports section has been a joke since the beginning of time. They try to spice up their lack of reporting with "spicy" opinion pieces. The result is a bigger joke.

On the bight side, it leaves a void filled by Bronx Banter and others. Alex is getting a shot over at SI. There is plenty of good info out there--just not in the Times.

Ugghh. Hey, Murray Chasshole, if you're gonna defame Bernie in this town, you'd better back it up with something more concrete than your misguided opinions.

There's a reason Bernie Williams has played more games in CF than any other Yankee in history. Think about it. Then you can write an appology article in the Palookaville Post or wherever you wind up next year. Hack.

Nick from WH
Yes, but its not an uninterrupted line which I think was his point. I have never viewed it that way nor have I met many (any?) who have. What's the big deal? We've had three great players and a borderline HOFer who have played CF for us for 64 out of the last 80 years. 16 years of interruption, where's the shame in that? How many franchises can make the same claim?

Believe me I come to praise Bernie not to bury him. Fair is fair and Chass is right, the line is not unbroken. However, I'm not so sure that the game was worth the bullet on this one. Was this deserving of a column. It does seem a little mean spirited. Bernie's been a wonderful player and someone we can all be proud to root for. I'm glad he's retiring a Yankee (if he does do that). We'll have plenty of time to say good things about him.

Whoa...anyone see this?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-BBO-Reardon-Arrested.html

off the topic a bit here's an article that predicts the AL East race for 2006.
Of course it's early, but as of now it seems right on the mark for us Yankee fans. And it's nice to get some honest evaluations about these teams.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5196710

re: #4 - rsmith51. A quick glance at Bernie's and JD's stats reveals that JD has once in his career exceed Bernie's lifetime OPS. JD didn't manage to beat Bernie's career mark once in the inflated atmosphere in Boston.

re: #24 - I wouldn't argue with this article which states "as presently constructed, Boston is a third place team." Should the Sox go into April with 7 starters, 9 relievers, no shortstop and no centerfielder, they will have a hard time cracking the top two, no doubt.

Is Boston's 06 season in real peril? With Millwood off the market can the Sawx trade Wells? Does anyone have a sense of how much they were depending on signing Millwood as a means of remaking the team? Signing Millwood might have allowed them to move Wells for the prospects they needed to use as trade bait to fill holes. Without moving Wells it seems they're going to have a devil of a time putting together a package for a shortstop and centerfielder. A deal with the Rays would have been sweet for them now it doesn't look as likely as it did before last night. Now it looks like they may have to pick those pieces up in separate deals which will be more expensive for them. I for one am not looking forward to a summer where the Sawx suck, an end of September stretch run against the Jays just isn't as much fun.

I know Debris has a set of ideas that made some good sense but those hinged on signing Millwood, at least they seemed to. The Rocket seems to be the only guy left they could sign that would allow them to move a top half of the rotation pitcher such as Wells with which they could bring back players needed to allow them to fill holes. Does bringing in Rocket make sense? Should they make a move with Wells prior to signing Clemens, fill their holes then try to get the Rocket? I doubt if he'd sign if their status remains as it is currently. This just seems to get messier for them by the day.

#23 - rrright - the "meds" made me do it.

wsporter, I think Millwood hurts the Sox's ability to trade Arroyo or Clement who were both rumored chips in trades for center fielders. I'd say there's a 90% chance a Wells trade will get done (and that the Millwood signing will have little effect on negotiations).

Nick f WH, If they move Wells what do they do to replace him? His contribution to the Sawx was, I think, generally undervalued last year.

I agree with you. He belongs in that "line".

No doubt, wsporter. I agree that he was a valuable part of the staff and it's unclear who will fill in for him. But Wells is on his way out regardless of Millwood, Damon, etc. He demanded a trade and apparently the demand has teeth (i.e. he's mentioned sitting out 2006 if he doesn't get his traded). My only point is that Millwood's non-signing will not prevent the Sox from sending Wells out west.

Wells' departure seems likely to net the Sox (based on rumors) a SS who can fill that hole (Dodgers prospects that can be flipped for Lugo, or Itzuris and Choi). But there's still that big hole in center. Originally, rumors had it that they were shipping Clement or Arroyo to Seattle for Reed. With Millwood off the table, and with Wells on the way out, they might have to rethink parting with either.

wsporter,

I nearly shat my pants when I heard the Sox were going after Millwood. He's my leading candidate for the 2006 Carl Pavano Award. I must confess befuddlement.

At this point the Sox have 7 starters: Schilling, Beckett, Wakefield, Papelbon, Clement, Arroyo and Wells. They can deal two, go into Spring Training with 5, and if one should break down, still have either Lester or Alvarez to push his way on to the team. There is considerable sentiment among the cognescenti that Lester is just about ready for the big time, despite his tender age and the fact that he hasn't seen AAA. (He is older than, for example, either Gubicza or Saberhagen were when they made the jump from AA.) So, to my mind, they can deal Wells and either Clement or Arroyo and still be fine going into camp.

Everytime a starter leaves the free agent market, the value of starters in the trade market increases. The Sox are discussing Wells with the Dodgers and will likely get something done this week. Talk is either prospects to send to Tampa Bay for Lugo or something involving Choi and/or Izturis. The latter would leave me gasping for breath.

Lugo would be a significant upgrade from Renteria both offensively and defensively.

They are also trying to pry Reed from Seattle for Clement. My understanding is that Seattle wants the considerably less expensive Arroyo. I don't think Coco Crisp can be had without dipping seriously into major prospects close to the big time, something the Sox don't want to do. In the easy come, easy go department, I'd send Marte to Cleveland if they could get Crisp, though I have no idea how Marte could fit into Cleveland's plans.

Quite honestly, I think they're a stronger team with Lugo and Reed than they would be with Renteria and Damon. they'd also save about 8 million big ones.

27 The man has no history of criminal activity, there is no evidence of financial stress, he started taking medication after the death of his son and the robbery is being described as out of character.

Yeah, I buy that the meds were a factor. You don't?

debris, do you really think that the difference between Lugo and Renteria (who in past posts you described as being near equals) would make up for the drop off Reed is from Damon? Reed was a good prospect, but his numbers last year were none too impressive. To assume he'll approach Damon's level beginning in 2006 is optimistic.

I do think the moves would be positive in the long run, but in the short-term, I think the Sox would take a step back.

Also, the Sox's odd interest in Millwood suggests that, contrary to your assertion that Lester or Alvarez are ready for the big time, the team feels it lacks pitching depth, especially if it is to trade off Arroyo or Clement. The only justification for signing Millwood is that he'll fill any vacancy created by the Sox trading two pitchers away. The Sox do not have confidence yet in some of their farmhands.

Debris, didn't you characterize Millwood as an upgrade over Wells in a post late last week? Then didn't you go on to say that Wells should have won 18 games and was a valuable member of the staff? How does that reconcile with your Pavano line? (which I still think is apt) Additionally I suggested to you after the Becket deal that both Lester and Papelbon were likely rotation candidates, you dismissed that suggestion as indicating that I was anything but cognoscente of the Sawx situation. What's changed between then and now? You may get something for Arroyo and or Clement maybe even Reed or Lugo, I doubt you'll get both. Good luck. BTW I agree that Millwood is way over hyped.

The Sawx may be stronger IF and WHEN they get Lugo and Reed. Yet, I'm reminded of Abe Lincoln's comments about Fighting Joe Hooker who in the Winter and Spring of 1863 was doing a lot of talking about what he was going to do when he took Richmond. Mr. Lincoln remarked that "of all creatures in nature the hen is the surely the wisest, for she only cackles after the egg is laid."

Nick,

Offensively, I think the jump up from Renteria to Lugo is pretty damn near the equivalent of the step down from Damon to Reed, and even that could be somewhat offset by the fact that Reed should improve as he gains more experience.

The defensive gain from Renteria to Lugo is pretty huge. Despite making a fair number of errors, Lugo's range is extremely impressive.

Also, Nick, I'm not suggesting that either Alvarez or Lester is ready. Indeed, Alvarez might never be a major league pitcher. I'm saying it is possible one of them might step it up in Spring Training as does happen. The Sox till have 5 in their rotation without Wells and Arroyo or Clement. Right now, with Schilling, Beckett, Wakefield, and Papelbon, they have 7. They also have the spare cash sitting around to bring back the Rocket, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Interesting article in the Portland (OR) Tribune this morning. The OSU coach says the Sox should give his former star, Jacoby Ellsbury, a long look at the centerfield job.

Sporter,

I think that's a misquote on Millwod. I was never in favor of a Millwod signing. You're right on Wells. He pitched much better than his numbers indicate, due to two poor outings out of camp and three poor outings, one with an ankle injury, two returning too soon. (OK, or refusing to make rehab starts as they wouldn't have helped him make his incentives.)

I think you're also off on the other quotes. While my sense is that Lester is probably 8-10 AAA starts from being ready, I have no doubt that Papelbon is a leading ROY contender and should be in the rotation. I absolutly love the guy.

er. absolutely

33 - I'm a psychologist, and I'd say that it's and unlikely but not impossible explanation. If Reardon's actually bipolar (manic-depressive) rather than just depressed, then anti-depressants could cause a manic swing - which would explain impulsive, antisocial behavior.

Another possible explanation is that it's not the medication but the depression itself, which can make people do some pretty self-destructive things.

Debris, your post from 12-23-05 follows, I would call your attention to the paragraph you have numbered as 2 as well as to your conclusion. It appears you advocate the signing of Millwood as an improvement over Wells. Perhaps I am misreading the apparent plain meaning of your words. As to the Lincoln quote I will admit to it coming from my memory. You'll find it in any number of sources including the Library of Congress or any of Bruce Catton's major works for example. I'd search out the others but ….

85. debris
jayd,
There are several holes in your thinking, although I'm in complete agreement with you on the grease job that got the Henry group the franchise.
Hole 1. This ownership didn't have the jing to swing the deal. John Henry is one of the richest men in baseball, considerably wealthier than George Steingrabber.
Hole 2. Lucciano (well named) is trying to cut payroll to dismantle the franchise. By all accounts, Lucchino was the only one in the front office who wanted to open the vault for Damon. In a clear sign that his power is waning, he was overruled.
The simple fact is that the Sox didn't think Damon worth the money. I see a scenario where they can upgrade significantly at two spots for less money.
1. Deal Wells and a prospect for JD Drew. Drew is an adequate centerfielder although a slight downgrade from Damon. Drew is an immense offensive upgrade from Damon, with a career .907 ops to Damon's .784. Adjust that with the Fenway differential and Drew could beat Damon by 150 points. LA will have to throw in a witch doctor to keep Drew healthy for more than two weeks at a time. Drew is $2 M cheaper than Damon and has three years left on his deal. LA has added Lofton, Garciaparra, and Mueller to their offense and has only four starters. Swapping Wells for Drew trims payroll and gives them a pitcher in Wells whose contract only becomes expensive if he stays healthy.
2. Sign Kevin Millwood. An upgrade from Wells.
3. Acquire Julio Lugo for Arroyo or Clement plus Shoppach.
With these moves, the Sox will have strengthened themselves vs. 2005 at every position except backup catcher.

Debris, you suggested that those in the know think Lester's ready for the majors. The Sox's pursuit of Millwood suggests otherwise. Of course, Lester of Alvarez might prove to be useful in spring training. They're warm bodies, and anyone's capable of steping up his game. Need I mention Aaron Small? The point is that it now seems that Sox management doesn't want to rely on either pitcher as potential back-ups for a roation that is likely going to miss a lot starts.

a lot of problems with the English language there. bad typing and dyslexia make Nick go BLAH!

wsporter,

That quote was from before their weekend negotiations with Millwood. I would have supported a $20 M/2 year deal, certainly never a 4 year deal like they offered or a 5 year one like Texas gave him.

Nick,

No one is suggesting that Alvarez is ready or near. Those suggesting that Lester is are not the Sox front office. Specifically, I'm referring to John Sickels, who seems to me to have a better eye for minor league talent than just about anyone out there.

I might add that I'm a bit confused by the Sox unwillingness to commit to some of their young talent. Why are they, for example, bringing in Mota and Seanez (who I really like) when that clearly squeezes Hansen and Delcarmen out? Is it simply a case of you can never have too much pitching? Are they stalling on Hansen and Delcarmen to push them back a year on arbitration? Why are they looking for a first baseman when Youkilis clearly deserves a chance to see what he can do? Why did they sign Flaherty when Shoppach has earned a look see as Varitek's backup?

They do have one enviable problem but a problem nonetheless. They have too much young talent ready for the show or near ready for one team to bring to the show when said team is expected to contend each and every year.

Personally, I'd commit to Shoppach and Youkilis. I'd forget about first base and the bullpen, both of which should be fine. I'd forget about signing another starting pitcher, unless of course they could sign Clemens. I think the Red Sox are in fine shape and in need of setting themselves only at short and center, both of which seem quite doable if they'd forget about the rest and go with what they have.

They are also down about $20 million in salary, putting them in great shape for taking on payroll as May and June roll around.

As Billy Beane has said, the first two months are about determining your needs, the next two about filling them, the last two about pushing for the post-season. The Sox are in fine shape right now. They outscored the league last year will little contribution after number 5. They won 95 games despite missing their closer and number 1 starter for basically the whole year.

Having Manny and Papi in the middle make up for a lot of other problems. They had one good OBP guy in front of Manny and Papi last year; if they lead with Loretta and Youkilis, they'll have two this year.

According to debris, as soon as you put on the Sox uni in Boston you produce (Reed, Lugo, Alvarez, Lester, Shoppach, Delcarmen, Youkilis). Nice rose colored sox...er, I mean glasses. Last time I checked not every player, no matter how seasoned they may be (Renteria), has trouble adjusting in the fishbowl. Fact of the matter is, the Beantowners have some serious holes to fill and are running out of options.
I also love how Damon's #'s will take a steep decline, but Loretta (2 yrs. older) will flourish in a league he hasn't seen.

Um, let me clarify. Not every player adjusts to the fishbowl. Stupid meds.

standup,

I'm not saying that Damon's abilities will decline, just that his numbers will as he goes from a park that boosts OBP by 40 points to a neutral park. Same with Loretta as he goes from the most extreme pitchers park in baseball to the aforementioned Fenway. I don't see where either player's road numbers will change much at all.

Simply put, if Damon is the same player in NY that he was in Boston, his numbers will take a serious decline. The reverse will be true for Loretta. Ballparks do that.

I also expect a serious bump in home runs in Fenway next year, both for the Sox and allowed by the Sox. The wind currents which carried balls to left and were changed when they built that glass monstrosity behind the plate will return now that the hideous thing has been ripped down. (Of course, given the overall climate change of the past 20 years worldwide, I suppose its possible that the prevailing winds have changed and that we'll see a whole new ballpark effect, vis a vis power, that will be quite unexpected.

As long as we're looking at player's home-away splits (Damon out of Fenway apparently just isn't that good-Jeremy Reed who batted .245 in 2005 is going to be near his equal in 2006, so the story goes...), how about Josh Beckett's? He's close to a league average pitcher outside of the pitcher's park in Florida. I wonder if he's a legit #1 or 2 in Fenway.

curious: someone above wrote that the jump from Renteria to Lugo offensively..." Actually, Renteria has a (park adjusted) career OPS+ 3 points higher than Lugo and they're both 29. Lugo isn't as good a hitter as Renteria, so getting him would (slightly) diminish Boston's offense at SS from 2005 to 2006.