You are hilarious, Emma.

And I'm shocked at that VORP list. Not who's number 1, but working my way down:

Hanley Ramirez - at #3? Everyone - remind all your Sox friends. And Metts fans too - Reyes is at 16.

Sheffield at 9? - Ugh.

And Jorge at 11? - Victor M is at 7 because of the better power numbers.

Not to nitpick after such a whitewashing...but was I the only one who was cursing Torre out when he had Melky sacrificing with a 1-run lead in the bottom of the 4th? They posted a 10 spot in spite of JT's best efforts to minimize the damage.

Shell does have an old-school ballplayer look, but he also has an 80's thing going on.

A litle Biff Tannen:

http://tinyurl.com/24tnze

and some George Thorogood:

http://tinyurl.com/28lnqa

b-b-b-bad to the bone, no?

I thought he looked like a bigger version of Matthew Lillard.

2 Wow. It's amazing to read some of the criticism of Torre lately, whether it be blaming him for Edwar's inability to throw a strike and now this. Let me ask you this, was Torre suppose to know that Shields was going to allow 10 ER, 7 in that inning alone? Shields is the Rays best pitcher. He's a pretty good pitcher. Now Torre is suppose to know the Yanks were gonna put up 21 runs.

Yes it is nitpicking. Can't we be happy (ever) as Yankee fans?

High forehead? Then his nickname should be obvious: The Human Eyeball.

2 With two on, and without knowing about the drubbing to come, it didn't infuriate me that much.

The only thing I can fault Joe for was leaving Posada in for the whole game. That wasn't that big a thing, either.

There must have been a very recent VORP update. A-Rod has broken 60.

I'll be sure to point out both Hanley and Renteria's VORPs to my RSN buddies. Of course, they might mention Sheff...

5 I don't think the point was he shouldn't bunt in a blowout, but more that you shouldn't be bunting in the early innings in a game in which any reasonable person would expect many more runs to be scored.

Also, to keep with the theme of nitpicking, Shields isn't the Rays best pitcher (Kazmir is). In addition, his last 60 IP have been awful. So, strictly speaking, yes, I think you could argue that Torre should have expected that the Yankees would score a lot of runs.

Having said that, I do agree with your point that in a 21-4 victory, one's foremost thoughts shouldn't be criticisms of Torre. I'm sure that stems from most people's frustrations with how Torre manages (or mismanages) a game, and the fear that such a move will show its ugly head in a closer game.

8 They might, but at least the Yankees didn't sign Julio Lugo to a long-term deal to fill a position vacated by both players (and, at least the Yankees aren't still paying Sheffield, nor have they squandered the prospects they received in the deal).

2 5 7 There are always some nits to pick, but that does not mean one is not happy with the win. I would have done a couple of things differently. For example, I would not have bunted Melky (see 2), but not because I would have foreseen the drubbing to come. Rather, I think that a bunt with two one and no one out in the fourth inning is just about always a bad play, unless your pitcher or Wil Nieves is batting. This nitpick has less to do with Torre per se, however, than with a particular piece of conventional wisdom shared by many a manager.

Second, I would have left Henn in for all three innings. At some point, Torre just has to stop using five and six pitchers in a game. Henn was brought up as a long man--well, let him be the long man, especially with a 15 run lead, and especially if you bother to let him bat!

Third, Posada would have been yanked by the fifth inning or so--I don't care how confused Molina would have been. You have a 10 or 15 run lead, just put down one finger for fastball and two for curveball.

Still, it's much more enjoyable complaining about little things that crop up during a blowout victory, than agonizing over excruciating losses.

1st and 2nd, nobody out is one of those situations where bunting is not bad. Expected runs are almost the same if the bunt is successful (1st and 2nd no out exp = 1.47; with 2nd and 3rd and 1 out it's 1.41), and of course you increase the chance of scoring one or two runs at the expense of scoring three or more, which makes sense with a 1-run lead in the middle of the game.

The main problem is that the bunt doesn't always work right. Then again it sometimes results in reaching base without costing an out. So I figure it's a close call and I can't fault Torre for trying it here.

Bashing Torre these days is just the thing to do. As is a complete inability by some to celebrate anything this team does well.

If the Yankees are within 5 games by the end of July which is altogether possible, they have 2 months and 6 head to heads with the Sox to make a legit run at the post-season.

The playoffs are increasingly more likely, and considering where things were a few weeks before the Break, I think that's pretty impressive.

At the very least, unless the Yanks hit the skids in the next couple of series, it's almost guaranteed that that six remaining games against Boston will "mean something." And as recently as mid June, I didn't think that was going to be the case.

I would think, that if nothing else, the Torre/Cashman haters would be giddy about the recent success of Phillips, and Duncan. I for one am not too proud to admit that I had totally written Phillips off as unable to hit ML pitching, but I'm very happy to see him thriving right now.

As for Duncan, I had no idea what to expect from him, but these happy rookie stories are great, and even if this season ends without a playoff run, Duncan's last two days will be a great highlight. I'm thrilled for the dude and I hope he keeps his hot hitting going against the Royals.

12 I don't follow your logic...if the expected runs are the same for each situation, how is it a good play? Basically, you are giving away an out for the same chance to score. Also, ignored in that equation is the relative opprtunity cost of giving the out away. While the risk of a DP is real, as is an out that doesn't advance the runners, you are forgoing the added benefits of positive outcomes.

If you are facing a top flight starter or a team with a great bullpen, I can see an argument for the bunt in that situation. Yesterday's situation did not come close to resembling either.

13 Your analysis does dismiss the feeling by many that the Yankees wouldn't be in as deep a hole had Torre managed more astutely during the season. Quite frankly, I don't see anyway Torre could/should be complemented for having this team only games over .500 on July 23.

As fun as it was to watch the Yankees lap the D-Rays over the past three games, it is somewhat sobering to know the Red Sox get to play 15 more games against them. That variable has to factor strongly into whether the Yankees can catch the Sox.

8 Just don't mention Sheff.

But Hanley as the best SS in the game? at 23 yo?

Priceless.

14 The expected runs evaluation does include all of the things you mentioned: giving away the out, getting out of the DP situation, and I'm not 'forgetting' the added benefit of positive outcomes (those are all included in the expectation of runs).
I didn't say it was a 'good play'. I said it was about even. If you could be certain that the bunt would work as intended, then it would be the right move, I believe, because in the long run you score the same number of runs bunting or hitting away, and you'll have more innings when you score one or two but fewer scoring three or more if you adopt the bunting policy. I think the first two runs are considerably more valuable (in terms of incrreasing your chances of winning). So when the bunt 'works', you're improving your winning chances. But it doesn't always work. So I say, it's about a toss-up.

15 Exactly.

13 I didn't think Phillips had it in him. But I knew he deserved a shot before two weeks of Cairo (see April 2006).

And Shelley made more sense than a few weeks of Damon at DH.

The Yankees win in spite of Torre, not because of him.

Cashman gets trickier to evaluate. But the fact is: They went into the season with Mgjfd, Phelps, Cairo, and Nieves on the roster. If they were smart, the season would end with none on the roster.

And that says nothing about Pavano and Igawa in the rotation.

You want credit for Torre/Cashman?:

Torre gets credit, so far, for making Melky the regular CF.

Torre gets credit for playing Duncan, when the other choice is trading Proctor for Wiggy. Cashman gets credit for giving him that choice.

Torre gets credit for putting Damon in LF and making Matsui a DH. Cashmna gets credit for signing Damon for four years and 52 million.

Torre gets credit for turning A-Rod around. Oh wait.

Cashman gets credit for Wil Nieves. He also gets credit for Jose Molina (a small improvement) - on July 22nd.

At least we can look forward to Mgfkj coming back!

15 And I'd make the case that, if the Yankees do claw their way back into it, Torre's managing will be one of the big reasons. His style can be called rigidity when it doesn't workk, but stability when it does. Being able to ride out adversity is precisely what his style is supposed to achieve - it's the predicted result of that model. So if that happens - for the second year in a row - it's tough to argue that he's irrelevant or destructive.

A more reactive manager might have won a game or two more to this point, but might also have created a more chaotic, less stable atmosphere. That shouldn't be discounted. The comparison I always make is with Billy Martin - a fiery tactical genius who would have self-destructed a month ago.

18 I realize that the formula accounts for all variables. What I meant by opportunity cost is that by bunting with 1-2, you do nothing to increase your chances of scoring, while if you don't bunt and benefit from a positive outcome, the expected runs increases significantly.

In other words (and I assume you are using the 2005 data table that seems to match your totals), instead of bunting and ensuring that same level of run expectancy, the offense could gamble on a positive outcome. The least positive outcome would be bases loaded and no outs, which would have a run expectancy of 2.31. Now, while the original 1-2, no out situation did factor in this possibility, the fact that it did occur requires that you re-evaluate the possible outcomes. So, by bunting, a team solidifies its chance at 1.4, but limits its chances at scoring much more.

Again, this is a topic open to extensive debate. I just happen to be of the opinion that you don't limit your chances in the 4th of a game that one might reasonably expect to be high scoring. In addition, the value of a blowout needs to be considered (least of which would be saving the bullpen). Clearly, wins are paramount, but if a manager thinks he can engineer a blowout, the current situation of the team might warrant certain decisions.

10 And don't forget Orlando Cabrera, with a VORP of 24.2. They didn't want him, either.

Anyone ever seen the indy film Chuck and Buck? I think Shelly is a deadringer for the actor Mike White. Check it out:

http://www.watchthis.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/mike_white.jpg

21 Sure, if you don't bunt, you're gambling, that's exactly right. You are lowering your chances of scoring one or two in order to increase your chances of scoring more than two.

Obviously, if you let Melky (say) bat and he reaches base, then of course your run expectancy goes up. But if you let him bat and he makes out, then you lower it. If you mention the positive pay-off but not the potential cost, that's kind of misleading!

Let me try to put my point in a nutshell. By bunting you do not change the expectation of runs. (Anyway within the margin of error you don't.) You are therefore trading, just about even up, chances of scoring the third and fourth run for additional chances of scoring the first and second run. Since the first and second runs are are more valuable (in terms of winning chances), it seems like a good trade-off to me.

That said, it's very close and I don't fault a manager who makes either decision.

Huh? "The least positive outcome would be bases loaded and no outs, which would have a run expectancy of 2.31. Now, while the original 1-2, no out situation did factor in this possibility, the fact that it did occur requires that you re-evaluate the possible outcomes." But it didn't occur; it's a hypothetical, not a fact. If you're going to stipulate a positive outcome to the at-bat, sure it's better. For that matter, if you stipulate a home run, then it's better still.

You're simply dismissing the probability that the batter will make out without advancing the runners at all, or that he will hit into a double play. The bunt greatly reduces both those probabilities.

The run expectancy is the same, but the way of getting to that average expectancy is different. The bunt, in this case, improves the probability of scoring exactly two runs, while reducing the (smaller) probability of scoring more. Of all the situations to argue against the bunt, this is a much closer call than most.

20 If those with intimate knowledge of the clubhouse believe that Torre's handling of the egos more than offsets his poor game management skills, then I can't argue with them. Without being privy to his exact influence and contribution, I can only rely on second hand accounts and the opinions of those in the know.

Having said that, I still don't see how one could commend Torre for steering the ship if they believe he was responsible for the choppy waters.

In other words, maybe a Bill Martin's superior game management would have had the Yankees in a position where panick wasn't even a concern? Is that possible? Who knows, but what I think is clear is that the Yankees shouldn't have to settle for a manager who is only capable of handling half of his responsibilities. Why can't the Yankees have a manager who is good at handling both the clubhouse and the game?

23 Wow. Yeah, I've seen it, and I didn't think I remembered a thing about it - until you mentioned that. You're absolutely right.

Still, you can't go wrong by nicknaming him "Frankenstein." (That's the monster, not the man, and it's not pronounced "Frahn-ken-shteen.")

Or "The Human Eyeball."

23 God, what a disturbing movie that was.

26 Maybe you're right. The question is, how many managers are there who do everything right? Billy Martin certainly wasn't the guy; neither was Buck Showalter. Maybe Dick Howser, but he'd be about the only Yankee manager of the last 35 years who could. So who did you have in mind?

I don't know what goes on in the clubhouse, either. Essentially, I'm taking the things that Torre is supposed to be good at, and looking at the predictions implied by that model. If events match the predictions, then it's at least some evidence for the validity of the original model.

And if the Yankees fall back out of it, then it's just rigidity.

24 In my original reply, I explicitly mentioned the possible negative outcomes.

25 Again, read 14, and let me know if you still think I am dismissing the possibility of the negative outcomes you mentioned.

The theory of run expectancy is based on risk/reward. Giving a way an out in the situation in question does lower the possibility of big inning, even though the average outcome remains about the same. Because my point is that I think the Yankees should have been playing for a big inning, I don't see how increasing the likelihood of 1 or 2 runs at the expense of 3 or 4 refutes my point. Of course, you could argue that the marginal value of more runs wouldn't have matched the benefit of 1 or 2 in yesterday's game. That's a valid point, albeit it one with which I wouldn't agree.

A comment of mine made the main article on the blog. This is, in fact, the pinnacle of my life.

15 Please show me where I complimented Torre. It is a fact that I have been advocating Torre's dismissal since May.

26 And, by the way, I didn't say I thought he was responsible for the choppy waters. Most of it was due to injury and slumps.

With the slumps in particular, a manager can be more or less reactive; Joe, obviously, is among the least reactive. He does is specifically with the long season in mind; that's what the model is built for. So another manager might be a game or two closer now, but might also be five games further back by season's end. We can't make any final judgment until October.

30 Then we agree. I think it's a decision that can be argued either way, not a clear-sut managerial error.

32 By calling the Yankees mini-rebound "impressive" in 13, it appeared as if you were complementing him in a manner similar to expressed in 20. If that wasn't the case, I gladly apologize for the implication.

26 indeed.

I can't give Torre credit for being a nice guy to his favorites when he's a bad manager.

Riding out adversity isn't a positive when the bad player isn't likely to get better (e.g., Damon, Cairo, Mientkiewicz, etc.). I expect that any other manager with an ounce of brains would give Abreu or Matsui (age and injuries factored in) the opportunity to improve to their mean ability.

Torre screws the team up, puts them in a hole, and then when those very very g