;-)

Also, during which 'erst' was Javy Vazquez the Yankees' ace? I guess that in 2004, as in 2007, the bar is pretty low...

I'm registering a quibble since they're not trying to get the RS to lose tonight.

it could mean both, couldn't it?

Murphy, I'm surprised you'd think I'd be intentionally vague. I thought I was the guy who overemphasized detail and literalism.

Commissioner Bud Selig has asked Jason Giambi to speak with George Mitchell within two weeks. Then Selig will decide what punishment to give Giambi for tacitly saying he used steroids in an interview with USA Today last month.

from LoHud

YANKEES
Damon DH
Jeter SS
Abreu RF
Rodriguez 3B
Posada C
Matsui LF
Cano 2B
Cabrera CF
Cairo 1B

anyone want to start a pool on how long joe will torture us with starting cairo???

I'm in for "past endurance"

isn't it clear, phelps endangered The Mighty Jeter with his defense of woe and didn't hit 800 foot homeruns or save babies from being eaten by Sidney Ponson, therefore he is not made of the mettle of "real yankees" and must be banished to the furthest reaches of the pine kingdom ...

lead the charge, fellow banterers, until i return ...

"Now batting (batting, batting)...first baseman (man, man)...number forty-one (one, one)...Miguel Cairo (ro, ro)...number forty-one (one, one)."

poor Phelps, as I predicted, that game will bury him a la Andy Phillips' 5K game. Maybe Joe should just start Cairo for whichever player goes 0 fer the night before. Now starting at catcher, "Miguel Cairo."

i plan on spending the game praying for a win and downing miller high life in the comfort of my own couch.

7 Trying to suspend Jason now is total bullshit. Is Bud going to go back and retroactively change Gaylord Perry's victories?

I'd love to see a good attorney get Bud under oath for a deposition.

uuh... giambi sure, but...

wow.

Not a good beginning, Yanks strand a lead off double.

Oh, and Phleps is "just a guy they put at 1st. He's not a 1Bman...The Yanks don't have any 1Bman.

And Suzyn: Joe likes the energy that Miguel brings out there.

Sorry. Someone had to say it.

I'm not weeping over giving up on Javier Vazquez "early"

I am annoyed that we traded Randy Johnson for nothing, but thats a whole new rant.

That's better than half of the scrubs they tried bringing in to replace him.

Javy should have at least started that game. Then maybe your statement in 33 would be valid. Or not.

-- Who was the original poster on that?

Heh.

And then he steals, eh?

My man CAiro.

But it alllll started with Cairo!

Brown 2 5 4 3 2 1 1
Vazquez W(1-0) 4.1 7 4 4 2 4 1

When your memory fails, baseballreference and retrosheet is your friend. Of course, that assumes you realize your memory is faulty :)

Ha!

And he was really bad in game three and saved by the Yankees scoring 19 runs.

For a bad hitter, that is.

:)

And refresh my memory--who started off this rally?

Bernie: 89 RATE
Kenny: 105 RATE

C Benjie Molina
1B Miguel Cairo
2B Dusty Pedroia
3B Joe Randa
SS David Eckstein
LF Scott Podsednik
CF Juan Pierre
RF Darrin Erstad

Whaddaya say?

That was coming off an ALDS series where an injured Kevin Brown pitched 6 innings of 1 one ball and Javier Vazquez got knocked around by Henry Blanco.

I would have thrown El Duques' corpse out there before both of them in an important game. But Vazquez was worthless to this team for months at that point. He shouldn't have been a consideration.

I blame Torre for that series, and I don't blame him for much.

2007
Pedroia = 95 RATE
Cano = 113 RATE

Lowell = 87 RATE (10 errors)
Arod = 105 RATE

Leche!

Oh, and BTW, ain't no way in hell we trade Abreu for him.

2006: Cano = 114 RATE

Now you see why I like RATE!

(pause)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

120 Unfortunately, it will probably take the paper printing fielding stats before most start to shut up based on them.

For instance, PeteAbe thinks defensive stats is new age mumbo jumbo.

Cano .876 (third in ML 2B)
Pedroia .856 (7th ML)

A-Rod .788 (10th ML 3B)
Lowell .752 (15th ML)

127 That's what I was going to say at first, but I decided to go with the ridiculous thing instead.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all runs are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: to count exactly the same towards the outcome of a baseball game...

Only in the Midwest.

Sigh.

Suzie with insight for a change: Javy just hit 90 pitches.

Hawk Harrelson does not. The second run is exactly the same as the third and the fourth in the quest to win the game. It has no magical properties of momentum. Put it in the class of McCarver calling a three run homerun when down by five a "rally killer."

But, uh, mehmattski, each game in a 7-game playoff series also counts exactly the same. It has no magical properties, either. So ultimately what Larry said doesn't make sense either.

He's so great when he's on.

This is a good day so far. Going to bed.

GO YANKEES!

Now I will have a good nights sleep :) :)

Too bad I have to get up early!

Go Yankees.

"It....is...high...it...is...far. It's Gone!"

[Pause]

No, it's off the top of the wall.

Harold Moskowitz - you suck! You're a fucking disgrace.

2007 = 128 RATE (28 Games)

And to realize Torre didn't want to play him out there last year. Bernie started 23 games there. Bubba started 9 games there.

Melky?

1 game.

Who gets the ninth, if Wang can't start it?

"Why are there always fewer comments when the Yankees win games than when they lose them? I get the idea that some people are only happy when they can complain."

What are people supposed to comment on now? I think Wang should have thrown outside on that pitch and not in?

We've still got a good thread going. No complaints here.

200 true enough.

And the 1500+ post mega-weekend-long thread from the last Red Sox series had over half its posts in the final game, which was a Yankee win.

216 Props to the GM for not over-reacting based on a small sample size.

Now, if only LaPorta will fall to the Yanks tomorrow at pick #30 . . . it would be even better if Wieters fell that far, but that will never happen.

Yeah, Wanger. Must have been a bird with a worm in its mouth.

Wang's gonna start the ninth, isn't he!

Francona is a good manager though, his tactics and BP management are usually pretty high level and he's been known to bat Youkliss lead off even though he's slow because he's an OBP machine. No one is perfect.

223 I'm thinking maybe DH. He's doing really well as DH so far. Platoon?

Miggy will play tomorrow, I guess!

Since then, it's really nice to see him regain his form...though I still don't like seeing him near walls.

No, I don't think it was even a possibility.

OK, Wang is at 97 with 1 out to go.

Wow, when last did the Yankees have a complete game from a starter? Amazing. Props to Wang!

Boy, these kinds of games sure are nice. Now, if Moose can just pitch well tomorrow, and the bats show up again . . .

277 And he never had two men on base all game, either.

280 Thanks.

All the players walked off the field like the game is over. But when are Proctor and Vizcaino going to pitch?

If we're really turning the corner, we'll win tomorrow and sweep the weekend. If the bad Yankees return, we'll lose tomorrow and lose the series over the weekend...just like what happened when we had all those games with the Mariners and Rangers a few weeks back and were supposed to be regaining form...but never did.

I like what I've seen the last week, though.

A's score on a Cust double! Second and third, two out for Crosby.

Plus Roger will be up soon.

This next month is going to be fun.

Ha!

G'night all.

295 Instead of a bang, he gets a bing. Good enough.

HA! and good night, all.

im gonna link these posts to schilling for bulletin board material ;) seriously though, these games have been painful. sox GIDP 5 times yesterday, so far 3 tonight... frustrating to watch

The Yankees always get killed on west coast trips too. It really makes sense.

Ha! See youse tomorrow.

do you at least cook him breakfast ;p

Now good night for real.

Good to see you, MFD - wondered where you've been, and I echo Chyll's sentiments. (Except I haven't figured your name out.)

325 The entire Mitchell investigation is a load of garbage. The union will never let anything happen to any of the players, and if anything was done, an arbitrator or a court would set MLB on its ass so fast . . . Bud wants some kind of scapegoat to save him from Barry's assault on history. The used car salesman is always about CYA for himself and MLB, above all else.

Its miraculous that MLB is the revenue-generating monster it is, because Bud Selig is an incompetent buffoon. The Mitchell investigation is just piece of evidence #1,548 of that.

I wish Doug Pappas were still alive, because I'd love to see him on TV tearing Bud to shreds over the Mitchell stuff. Sigh.

Not to mention cover his own ass for dropping the ball.

Chien-Ming is awesome. We're lucky to have him.

And how 'bout that play by Melky? Charged the ball beautifully and man, what a throw. Right on, Melky!

And let's not forget Cairo, eh?

See you tomorrow, Miggy!

Good game tonight, people, good game.

For the love of God, I hope they don't fuck us tomorrow by losing in some kind of circus-circus slop-fest.

Come on, Mike, step up!

RI, in the other thread, you wrote:

"A-Rod got a lot of good hits in April. Skepticism about 'hot' obviously isn't skepticism that batters have some months better than others!
If you flip a quarter one thousand times, there will be some stretches during which the quarter comes up heads a remarkable percentage of the time. Sometimes it will come up heads seventeen times out of twenty. Does that mean the quarter is 'hot' during those stretches? Does it also go cold? "

And JL wrote:

"And to take that one step further: the concept of "hot" assumes that a batter having a great month is more likely to get a hit next time up. That's akin to saying that, because a quarter's just come up 17 of 20 times, it's more likely to hit heads the next time."

But this seems preposterous to me.

When a guy is locked in or hot, it's clear he has a better chance of hitting the baseball well because his mechanics are better. He's not off-balance because he's seeing the ball well, his swing is shorter, more level, better.

One of the most infuriating moves Joe made imo was back in 2001 when he insisted on putting Justice in the lineup in the postseason because he was a veteran, a "good hitter," despite the fact that anyone with eyes to see could predict he had no chance of getting a hit.

He was utterly and entirely lost and took some of the ugliest swings you'll ever want to see.

Torre should have played Spencer because a mediocre hitter not in a slump is better than a very good hitter who's in a slump, regardless of what their respective averages are.

As to your quarter, yes, you would say the quarter is hot if there were variables involved which favored one result over another.

Quarter-flips are entirely random, human beings hitting a baseball are not random at all.

When a lifetime .350 guy is in a slump, say because of a mild injury, it might just make more sense to pinch hit a guy who's swinging the bat well of late, despite being a lifetime .250 guy, all else being equal.

This is perfectly sensible, isn't it?

In any case, I went to a Dodgers-Padres game at Petco last night (Tuesday), good times. Totally different atmosphere of course, and I was sitting in the bleachers, which in Petco are mostly for kids as there is a giant sandbox in part of it and the rest is mostly grass covered! Go figure. All in all I am a big Petco Park fan though (Best fish tacos, only fish tacos!)

Well, thats really all I got as I haven't watched any of the last two yanks game and won't get a chance to watch tomorrows either as I'll be on a plane...ergo, the best win!

I agree completely, as I tried to say in the last thread. Although I was not as sensible and level headed as you were above. But I am glad to see I am not alone.I just get all hot headed when I am confronted with the idea that all things in baseball have a fixed mathematical likelyhood of occurring or not occurring, regardless of circumstance. I like to think probability, Sabermetrics and the like are but tools to be used equally with what the eyes of the manger see, and just plain old baseball smarts and experience. I like the weigh them evenly while acknowledging that they both have value. Some things cannot be measured, but it doesn not extend that they do not exist. (And for Christ's sake I am talking baseball here, not God) Thanks for the David Justice example. But to be fair, Soriano made Justice look like a stud in 2003. Had to say it. I still get angry thinking about his swinging at high fastballs.

If Selig wanted folks to talk he would adopt some sort of amnesty for players and encourage them to speak. But telling or indicating that you are going to punish players who speak honestly only serves to shut them up. Now, Giambi will never say anything and those that want to find out will not find out.

Weeping,

"But this seems preposterous to me."

Yes, I understand that!

"When a guy is locked in or hot, it's clear he has a better chance of hitting the baseball well because his mechanics are better."

Well, that's the question. My original point was that this is probably an illusion.
I leave out cases in which a great batter is suffering from an injury. In those cases, of course he is 'cold', and less likely to get a hit than usual. But we were talking about 'hot', and I'm skeptical (and the evidence seems to be on my side).

Vandelay,

"But I am glad to see I am not alone. I just get all hot headed when I am confronted with the idea that all things in baseball have a fixed mathematical likelyhood of occurring or not occurring, regardless of circumstance."

Ugh. If you think I said that, then I'm not communicating well. I think it's obvious that lots of circumstantial factors affect the likelihood of getting a hit; the pitcher, for instance.

"Some things cannot be measured, but it doesn not extend that they do not exist."

Indeed. But the likelihood of a guy getting a hit in various circumstances, that is surely something that can be measured!

For Geeks Only: S. Christian Albright "A Statistical Analysis of Hitting Streaks in Baseball" (Journal of the American Statistical Association 1993) appears to show that streakiness is confined to "a small minority of players". But Albright is graciously modest in his own conclusions. The jury is still out.

So what the hell happened: I take a month and a half off I come back and find that our team is in the toilet, Belth is married and Jim Dean is telling people to treat each other nicely? I feel like Steve McQueen at the end of the Sand Pebbles.

Agonizing to watch.

Oh, and watch out for those random falling Helton debates - they hurt when you get hit by one. ;)

Seriously, though, with the Justice example, how is it possible to measure when a guy just plain looks terrible at the plate, when he's lost?

For a comparison, when Derek went 0-32 or whatever it was, he looked fine to me. He seemed to hit a lot of decent groundballs to third base, but other than that, I don't remember noticing anything to suggest he was lost or hopeless.

But watching Justice bat back in that funk, it was apparent he had as small a chance as a major league baseball player could have of getting a hit. He was off-balance in the extreme and it literally looked like he just couldn't see the baseball.

Jeter's funk was 32 games, yet it hardly even looked like a funk--it was just the results (no hits) that were funky, as it were.

So I'd take that 0-32 Jeter over the Justice who struck out seven straight times or whatever it was, even though over 32 at-bats during that period he might have sprinkled in three or four hits.

I don't know if I'm making sense, but at least I turned a nice phrase going from "in funk" to "funky results," eh?

Thank you, thank you, folks.

I love this crowd!

It's certainly not my contention that all of baseball is a function of steady statistical probabilities. It's that there is always a certain amount of built-in variability, and we shouldn't mistake that for some genuine difference.

"Hot" is something that I'm skeptical of, because it's always based on a very small sample size. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that I'm very wary of making that judgment. Either a slump or a hot streak gets more valid as it gets longer, but I think it still has very weak predictive validity.

And this discussion started with the idea of "the hot hand out of the bullpen," which I think is a particularly tenuous concept. Relievers pitch 10-15 innings a month, a few batters at a time. There are so many variables in a pitcher's performance that the random element (or, at least, the factors that we're not able to measure from here) outweigh a "hot" or "cold" trend.

But I still don't mean to imply that you might just as well bring in Vizcaino as Proctor in a given situation. AS far as I can tell, the problem with Vizcaino isn't that he's "cold," it's that he "sucks." It's more a question of measuring a pitcher against himself; bring in Proctor because he's Proctor, not because he's hot.

If it's any help, I have the same criticism of many statistical analyses. They analyze any differences as if they're meaningful, apparently without any consideration of statistical significance. That's just bad analysis.

Hope everybody's fat, sassy and happy