Andy will be Dandy for One More Year

It looks like Andy Pettitte’s Hamletian dillemma is over. Yes, he will be. Reports say he’ll return to the Yanks in 2008. Unless I’m missing out on some counter-intuitive argument, this is very good news for Yanks fans.

82 comments… add one
  • If they were to land Santana now, it’s very good news for Yankee fans. If not, well it’s pretty much the same as it was last year.
    They still need a #1.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 9:56 am
  • Santana-Wang-Pettitte-Chamberlain-Kennedy.
    Yeah, that’s pretty good. I might call the rotations about even if the Yanks got Santana.

    Devine December 3, 2007, 9:58 am
  • “If not, well it’s pretty much the same as it was last year.
    They still need a #1.”
    The first sentence is not true. The last sentence may be very true. The whole statement is not true.

    Nick-YF December 3, 2007, 10:00 am
  • Wash up? He won 15 games last year? How many wins does Schilling won last year… what?? What?
    Pettitte, who was 15-9 with a 4.05 ERA in 2007, played the first nine years of his career with the Yankees, winning four World Series titles while becoming the all-time leader in postseason victories by a lefthander. After those nine years in the Bronx, he played three seasons with his hometown Astros from 2004 through 2006, helping the Astros reach the World Series for the first time in franchise history in 2005.
    Good News indeed.. Yes.. Welcome back Andy. The Yankees homegrown pitcher.
    Oh is that so?, The Yankees hitters owned Redsox so called aces with Beckett, Schilling, Dice-k in 2007 Please look up it . They had high Era versus against Yankees.. Oops..
    Yup, Redsox won the world series this year after beating small market teams lousy like Rockies and Indians. The Yankees won series against 10-8 Redsox. Too bad, The Yankees aren’t in Nl, Let see If Redsox beat Yankees face them in playoffs.
    Yankees 26
    Redsox 7
    Still long way to go.
    How many years The Redsox have choked before winning world series in 2004? 86 years….
    Wow, According to Redsox Fans 26 titles doesn’t count, past accomplishment meant nothing at all. Where’s is the respect?
    Same thing with Yankees, Did Yankees asked them to play Indians?
    Redsox Fans can’t accept that Rockies are small market ballclub . It’s not even a competitive World Series this year. What a joke…
    Pettite won two world series without Clemens by his side.. 1996-1998.. Look it up….
    Don’t Blame The Yankees. It was Arod who went to Tampa by himself and set up a meeting with Hank Arod decided to return to Yankees by his own merit not playing for any other team like The Yankees. Blame Scott Boras who decided to take Arod opt clause
    Did Rockies suddenly become a Big Market team? I don’t think so.

    Sam-Yf December 3, 2007, 10:04 am
  • nick, thanks for the post…i’m with you, it’s very good news for yankee fans…
    brad, you got a point, right now were status quo with last year, but up until andy decided we had 2 SP holes, his and the ace…this is good news because now we don’t have to fill his spot in the rotation…

    dc December 3, 2007, 10:06 am
  • sam, please pick a new Name as I post under the name Sam-YF regularly here.
    This post above was not me.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 10:06 am
  • Clearly, that’s just a comment copied and pasted from other site. No one here said Pettitte was “wash up.”
    This makes the prospect of the Yanks’ getting Santana much more unsettling for the Red Sox. Without Pettitte, you could have argued the Sox still had the edge in rotations, even with Santana and Wang as the Yanks’ 1-2. But Santana-Wang-Pettitte is a solid front three.

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 10:10 am
  • Yeah, with Pettitte in the mix, I honestly think the Yankees have more than a slight edge on the Sox if they get Santana now. Santana, Wang, Pettitte and Kennedy are guys who are all capable of pitching 200 innings (in terms of Kennedy, I would think that’s what he’s slated for next year). And Chamberlain as a fifth starter is all upside.

    Andrew December 3, 2007, 10:22 am
  • Whoooooo!
    I suppose the Yankee FO bungled how they handled Pettitte too?
    Whoooooo!

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 10:23 am
  • Pettitte’s back!
    YAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

    doug YF December 3, 2007, 10:26 am
  • This is great news, especially if Santana stays put or goes to Boston. He will steady the rotation for one more year and then we can dip into the free agent pool after 2008…

    krueg December 3, 2007, 10:26 am
  • Exactly, krueg.
    They get Santana – great. They don’t – they have two (or three – Moose) vets in the rotation while they have another year to evaluate their pitching prospects and see if they already have that “ace” they “need”.
    Win-win all around.
    Whoooooooo!

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 10:31 am
  • I don’t mean to interrupt the party, this is certainly good news for Yankee fans, but if the Red Sox end up getting Santana, that is still bad news for Yankee fans.

    LocklandSF December 3, 2007, 10:34 am
  • I agree with Lockland more than I disagree with him. Imagining a Santana-Beckett-Dice K rotation is making me sick.

    Nick-YF December 3, 2007, 10:40 am
  • The big and scary difference between Santana-Wang-Pettitte and Beckett-Matsuzaka-Shilling isn’t them in themselves but that the Yankees scored 101 more runs than the Red Sox in ’07. All of a sudden as a Sox fan, I want to sell the farm to get Santana. Although I’m sure Theo had Pettitte in mind, because Theo is our resident super genius (Bellichick equivalent), this turn of events may change things a little in the Sox FO.
    And as for the first fanatic Sam-YF who posted, I think we can all agree that Pettitte is a better pitcher than Shilling. As for the rest of that post, please take a breath. It’s most fun being rivals when we can be humble about our teams strengths and weaknesses.

    Pat (SF) December 3, 2007, 10:41 am
  • Im not sure that Pettitte coming back to the yankees should change things for the Sox FO at all. They should (and likely are) make their decisions based on their own needs not what the yankees are doing. In general, I think a bit too much is made of how much each team watches the other’s moves. They compete for players in the market because they both want the best players and have the money to sign them but I dont think they often fall into the trap of team X did this so we should do this…
    Kei Igawa is the most notable recent exception and we all know how that panned out.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 10:45 am
  • No, Lockland. Get it right. The Red Sox getting Santana means nothing other than the Red Sox have given away all their talent to get a starting pitcher. Just like, you know, Beckett.
    Congrats, YF’s. At least this makes it interesting.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 10:45 am
  • Dont lump us all into that crowd Brad. If the sox get Santana I wont be happy. There are many sox fans who would say the same thing you wrote if the yanks get Johan.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 10:49 am
  • Pettitte surprised me. I cynically thought this might be a move for leverage, but was completely wrong. Good for Pettitte, and good for the division rivalry next year!

    SF December 3, 2007, 10:49 am
  • Ture enough, Sam. Although, I won’t be one of them! ha. I will hate it if they get him because at that point, the rotations are very, very similar.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 10:58 am
  • “Calls and requests for him to return from Brian Cashman, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Joe Girardi, among others, influenced him, as did an outpouring of requests from Yankees fans,” Hendricks said, after the news was first reported by the Houston Chronicle.
    Guess the letter writing campaign wasnt such a bad idea after all.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 11:14 am
  • Career vs. Yankees:
    Santana – 5 GS, 3-0, 2.66 ERA, 40.2 IP, 14 BB, 35 K
    Beckett – 8 GS, 4-3, 6.56 ERA, 46.2 IP, 24 BB, 39 K
    Diced-K – 4 GS, 2-1, 6.12 ERA, 25 IP, 13 BB, 23 K
    And Santana is not going to repeat those numbers in Fenway, especially not against a lineup that features the best RH bats at their positions, and Matsui absolutely crushes Santana (26 PA – 1.142 OPS)
    I’m not sick. Call me excited, especially if the Yankees hold onto all of their top pitching talent.
    Meanwhile, the “poor” Red Sox would be spending about 60 million on their starting rotation.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 11:23 am
  • Again, it’s really too bad that we don’t play 162 against the Yankees. It’s the other 22 starts that have us excited. Exactly what pitcher the Red Sox chase down that can get through that lineup without error? Is their one? I mean, it’s not like Yankee killers grow on trees, but I’ll take that package of three any day of the week in the playoffs. You can spin whatever numbers you want to make it sound like it’s not a big deal Mike, but in reality, it really is.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 11:27 am
  • edit.. should the Red Sox chase…

    Brad December 3, 2007, 11:28 am
  • You are hilarious, Mike!

    Devine December 3, 2007, 11:29 am
  • Apropos of nothing, Frank Thomas really crushes Santana:
    .476 .577 1.238 – 5 HR in 26 PA.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 11:29 am
  • Anyone know if he got a raise or anything? Or is that still in the works?
    This is very nice, obviously..

    Lar December 3, 2007, 11:30 am
  • And if they’re going to spend sixty million for a starting rotation, I’m happy. It’s hard to point fingers at money, Mike, when the Yankees just gave half that amount to a lone player. Right?

    Brad December 3, 2007, 11:30 am
  • Mike, do you have any other tiny sample sizes you want to use in order to make your arguments?

    LocklandSF December 3, 2007, 11:32 am
  • This is GREAT news for Yankees fans. Even without Santana they now have, at the least, a pretty solid rotation. Wang-Pettitte-Moose, with a combination of the three rookies to fill the #4 and #5 spots.
    They get Santana – great. They don’t – they have two (or three – Moose) vets in the rotation while they have another year to evaluate their pitching prospects and see if they already have that “ace” they “need”.
    Are you calling Wang a veteran, Mike? Because last time I checked having only 2 full major-league seasons does not make you a veteran.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 11:32 am
  • careful, mike. the yanks happen to be spending a sixth of your projected sox rotation budget on good ol’ carl pavano alone.

    Yankee Fan In Boston December 3, 2007, 11:33 am
  • Come on, who wouldn’t be excited?
    Santana goes to the Sox, the Yankees are the 200 million dollar underdogs! Un-buh-leev-able!
    He goes to the Yankees – it’s on!
    This rivalry has never been better. Who doesn’t love great baseball?

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 11:34 am
  • Okay, Wang’s not a vet. But he’s an established and consistent arm. You know exactly what you’re getting with him. 200 IP, 3.70 ERA, 19 wins. I’ll take that.
    Pavano will be released before the week is out. Call it a sunk cost.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 11:39 am
  • “Okay, Wang’s not a vet. But he’s an established and consistent arm. You know exactly what you’re getting with him. 200 IP, 3.70 ERA, 19 wins. I’ll take that.”
    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
    I don’t even know where to begin with this statement.

    LocklandSF December 3, 2007, 11:41 am
  • But he’s an established and consistent arm. You know exactly what you’re getting with him. 200 IP, 3.70 ERA, 19 wins.
    So two years is enough to know how a player is going to play for the rest of their careers? Coco Crisp had 2 great seasons where he batted .300, and then he slumped the next two years. And you then said that Crisp will always bat at the lower number, and not his previous successful years.
    In other news, it was 51 degrees here both yesterday and today, so weathermen are predicting an entire year of 51 degree weather!

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 11:45 am
  • Glad I’m not the only one Lockland ;-)

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 11:45 am
  • Tiny sample sizes are better than zero sample sizes :)
    Santana in Fenway:
    3 GS, 1-3, 6.89 ERA, 15.2 IP, 8 BB, 12 K
    Santana in Yankee Stadium:
    3 GS, 2-0, 1.17 ERA, 23 IP, 5 BB, 23 K

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 11:46 am
  • Tiny sample sizes are better than zero sample sizes
    Wow, officially discredited, just like that.

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 11:48 am
  • Lockland –
    Wang’s more consistent than Beckett. That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.
    The Yanks are more likely to know what they’ll get from Wang than the Sox know what they’re likely to get from Beckett (or Dice-K).
    Call me excited to find out!

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 11:49 am
  • Tiny sample sizes are better than zero sample sizes :)
    Well in that case, Clay Buchholz is going to win 75% of the starts he makes, pitch 116 no hitters (shattering Nolan Ryan’s previous record of 7), and have a career ERA of 1.59.
    Oh, and Wang will have a postseason ERA of 19.00 again next year. All under your logic.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 11:51 am
  • The Yanks are more likely to know what they’ll get from Wang than the Sox know what they’re likely to get from Beckett (or Dice-K).
    hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 11:53 am
  • Wang’s more consistent than Beckett. That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.
    In a vacuum, yes. 4 of Beckett’s last 5 seasons he had an ERA under 3.79. Wang has played two full seasons as a major league pitcher.
    Even with Beckett’s one outlier season–which can be attributed to changing leagues–he’s the more consistent one simply because his sample size is 2.5 times larger.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 11:54 am
  • i dont like the looks of where this one is going….

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 11:57 am
  • Wang has been great so far; no one can deny that. But to say that you know exactly what you’ll get from him based on two years of sample size is just rediculous.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 11:58 am
  • Puh-leeze Theo! Go get Santana! Do it! Pleeeeeze!
    Yanks as underdogs! I love it!
    Oh no, the dreaded three-headed 6.00 ERA monster!
    P.s. You folks take yourselves WAY too seriously. a :) is exactly what it looks like. Learn to smile – you’ll live longer!

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 12:02 pm
  • What’s considered a full season? Beckett did pitch against Quad-A, and his ERA+ reflects that – very good in 2003 and 2007, and otherwise just merely good. Wang actually has a higher overall ERA+, and probably a higher overall ERA+ in the AL (too lazy to do the math for Beckett).

    Lar December 3, 2007, 12:05 pm
  • are we really getting ready to argue who is a better pitcher, Wang or Beckett?
    Really, YF’s.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:10 pm
  • Maybe so Lar, but Mike is saying that he knows Wang will always give 200 IP, 3.70 ERA, 19 wins. All based on two seasons.
    Like I said, Wang has been really good so far, but to expect things to stay the same from here on out is pretty rediculous.
    You can make a case that you know what you’ll get from Pettitte, but not someone who is about to start his 3rd season.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:10 pm
  • Yankee fans are the only people on this entire freaking planet who would think of arguing this. Anyone who knows anything about baseball, or pitchers, or can breathe oxygen knows better.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:11 pm
  • I don’t think anyone is arguing that Wang is better than Beckett, but Mike is saying that he is an established arm, and that you know what you’ll get from him.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:14 pm
  • brad, Chill with the generalizations. There are many SFs who make illogical arguments about their own players too.
    Everyone else, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to rehash the conversation about Wang again. Please!

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 12:16 pm
  • The Yankees sure thought they knew what they’d get from him in the playoffs … until they didn’t.
    The fact is, you can never be 100 percent sure what you’re going to get from ANY pitcher. The best in the league offer a greater degree of certainty, but even Pedro in 1999/2000 had a couple non-quality starts.
    Having said that, the pitchers with the most certainty are strikeout pitchers because they control their own fate. Wang relies on his defense, and though he generally gets great results, when the sinker is just a little off, he gets plastered.
    So he might be established as one of the bestter ground-ball pitchers in baseball, that doesn’t by any stretch tell you what you’ll get.

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 12:19 pm
  • Agreed, Sam. If anyone we should be focusing on Pettitte!
    If Pettitte puts up average numbers (200ip, 4.20 ERA), it will be a great asset to the Yankees. I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t have an average (or better) year. He’s still only 35.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:19 pm
  • Actually, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s easier to predict the future when you understand the past. Obviously, a bigger sample is always better. But one “past” that’s more variable is harder to predict the future on (Beckett). One that’s less variable is easier to predict (Wang).
    Meanwhile, what’s the magic threshold for when a small sample becomes a decent sample?
    There isn’t one. You simply get greater precision with more evidence. Sure, you can say whatever you want about Buchholz. The difference is your likelihood of being right. And based on the past two seasons with their given teams in their given ballparks, I have no problem saying Wang is more likely to repeat his numbers than Beckett is. Indeed, Beckett might be even better. Or he might be worse. And that’s where this statement comes from:
    “The Yanks are more likely to know what they’ll get from Wang than the Sox know what they’re likely to get from Beckett (or Dice-K).”

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 12:22 pm
  • Yes Mike, but you also said:
    Okay, Wang’s not a vet. But he’s an established and consistent arm. You know exactly what you’re getting with him. 200 IP, 3.70 ERA, 19 wins. I’ll take that.
    2 years does not make someone established. Arguing so, and then backpedaling to say that “well, Wang’s more consistent than Beckett!”, makes you look silly.
    But let’s get off of this. Pettitte is back with the Yankees, and as a Sox Fan I’m sad to see him back because the Yankees are stronger because of it.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:30 pm
  • Paul –
    You’re just making things up. Let’s look at the evidence:
    Pitcher A – S1: 218.0 IP, 3.63 ERA, 1.307 WHIP, 52 BB, 76 K
    Pitcher A – S2: 199.3 IP, 3.70 ERA, 1.294 WHIP, 59 BB, 104 K
    Pitcher B – S1: 204.7 IP, 5.01 ERA, 1.295 WHIP, 74 BB, 158 K
    Pitcher B – S2: 200.7 IP, 3.27 ERA, 1.141 WHIP, 40 BB, 194 K
    Pitcher A is much more predictable.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 12:31 pm
  • There’s no evidence, Atheose, that you’ll get anything different from Wang. Sure you might, but then that’s the problem with predicting any pitcher. It’s not specific to Wang. The point is and was, he’s more predictable than Beckett (or Dice-K).

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 12:36 pm
  • brad, ahteose, come on guys, not all yf’s think the same way…here’s the no-brainer for the day: beckett is better than wang, has been and probably always will be…having said that, i’m glad to have wang in my rotation [since i can’t have beckett]…2 years is not long enough to give a complete projection of a career, but how big does the sample size have to be for you guys to draw a conclusion on what wang means to the yankees should his career continue on this path?…most of you have already anointed ellsbury as a future hall of famer, while buchholz will be putting an addition on his home for the cy young trophies he’s sure to win…how about some balance in your arguments?…

    dc December 3, 2007, 12:40 pm
  • “The point is and was, he’s more predictable than Beckett (or Dice-K).”
    That was your BACKPEDALED point at 11:49, after you said the following at 11:39:
    Wang’s not a vet. But he’s an established and consistent arm. You know exactly what you’re getting with him. 200 IP, 3.70 ERA, 19 wins.
    Don’t try to change your point just because the first one was dead wrong.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:41 pm
  • most of you have already anointed ellsbury as a future hall of famer, while buchholz will be putting an addition on his home for the cy young trophies he’s sure to win…how about some balance in your arguments?…
    Can you give an example? You’re lumping all of us SF’s into one group again. I have high hopes for both Ellsbury and Buchholz, but the likelihood of either being in the Hall of Fame is doubtful.
    Broad, generalized statements are bad. (ignore the irony that that statement, itself, was a broad generalized statement ;-))

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:43 pm
  • dc, I’ve never said either of those things. In fact, I’ve said all along that Santana is worth either of them.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:45 pm
  • Wang sure is predictable. For example, I predict his playoff blowup will haunt him until traded away midseason, to the glee of yankee fans everywhere.
    They better sign Santana or they may not even make the playoffs this year.

    RS Fanbase December 3, 2007, 12:47 pm
  • True, and if anything, Wang is more unpredictable because his performance is largely correlated with BABIP (than normal), which is (at least) mostly luck..

    Lar December 3, 2007, 12:47 pm
  • What changed with the Yanks from last year? If anything, our rotation should be more stable, though people are getting older..

    Lar December 3, 2007, 12:49 pm
  • Chill Atheose, you’re trying to crucify me based on a quote taken out of context. But, yeah, I have no problem predicting 200 IP, 3.70 ERA, 19 wins for Wang. If he’s healthy that’s what he’ll give. And I don’t think that’s a shocker. Dude’s consistent (more so than Beckett :)

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 12:57 pm
  • Would the Twins want a Santana-Beckett-DiceK rotation to potentially face in future playoffs or would they rather see a Santana-Wang-Chamberlain (thinking that Pettitte retires for sure after this season)?
    I’m not sure if this is what concerns them much when deciding who to trade with, but it made me wonder.
    I’m very glad Pettitte came back as the young pitchers would benefit with another veteran presence like Andy to help them deal with the inherent pressure of playing in NY. Hopefully Wang can learn to strive in the playoffs just like Andy has in the past.

    tells-YF December 3, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • brad, atheose, i said “most” of you…that’s hardly a generalization…and come on, this site is littered with past posts and comments extrapolating the brief major league expoits of ells and buck…are you guys really going to make me go back and present them to you?…my point was that you chided mike for drawing conclusions about a player based on a small sample size [2 full seasons in wang’s case], while some sox fans [maybe not you] are making similar claims about your own players using smaller sample sizes…so, my question is when does a sample size become big enough?

    dc December 3, 2007, 1:09 pm
  • Well dc I don’t think any of us called either Ellsbury or Buchholz “future hall of famers”, so yes I would like you to go back and find some proof. We’re excited about both of them, and they’ve both been very successful so far, but the small sample sizes makes any long-term success far from certain.
    MIKE is the one going on and on about how small sample sizes are better than no sample size, not us! ;-)

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:13 pm
  • While Wang only pitched a partial season in ’05, he did make 17 starts, pitching 116 innings. His numbers that year were roughly on par with those of ’06 and ’07.

    Anonymous December 3, 2007, 1:20 pm
  • I think Pettitte’s return is exactly what Scott Boras has been intending all along. The genius.

    IronHorse (yf) December 3, 2007, 3:08 pm
  • athose, actually i only said ellsbury was projected as a future hall of famer, while buck would need an addition to his home for the cy young trophies…of course, with that many, he’d probably be a shoo-in for the hall…
    “…go back and find some proof…”
    not to disappoint you, but i’m not going to bother…you’re smart enough to get my point without the proof whether it exists or not…you’re excited about your guys based on a small sample size…so is mike…his point was that his “sample size” is bigger than yours… ;)

    dc December 3, 2007, 3:54 pm
  • not to disappoint you, but i’m not going to bother…you’re smart enough to get my point without the proof whether it exists or not
    Nice hit and run tactic. Make an effort, it will only help your claims to be correcting us SFs, to being the antidote to our boosterism. Otherwise, it’s weak.

    SF December 3, 2007, 3:57 pm
  • gimme a break sf…do you really think that the 2 claims i made about ells and buck weren’t ridiculously gross exaggerations just used to make a point?…the point was that many sox fans have been effusive in their praise for both players, setting some pretty high expectations…i only have a problem with that when someone else is not allowed to feel similarly…
    by the way nice duck and dodge of the real point…a handful of games is a small sample size, 2+ years is not…

    dc December 3, 2007, 4:22 pm
  • DC, you obscured the point by turning the focus onto Ellsbury and deriding Sox fans here for saying things that have never been said. This is your bull in a china shop of your making; if the point the point has been lost, it’s because you wrote the map.
    Yay analogies!

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 4:38 pm
  • All I am asking is that if you say that someone said something and they assert they did not, than it’s a much stronger position to cite their claim. And it’s not that hard, especially if it is in a relatively new thread. This is one of my MAJOR pet peeves, ascribing claims to people who never said what is being ascribed to them. Considering we have archives and this is a written medium it lends itself to accountability, which is a good and useful thing in my opinion.
    Otherwise the dialogue is something like this:
    “You said this, you are wrong, and this is why…”
    “No, I never said that, prove it”
    “No, I don’t have to prove it. You said it, so I am right”.
    Not a great discussion, right?

    SF December 3, 2007, 4:45 pm
  • Wow, strained analogies, mixed metaphors, Paul!

    SF December 3, 2007, 4:51 pm
  • Why do you guys insist on ganging up on someone when they don’t see things like you do? It’s one thing for commenters not to agree. It’s quite another for the authors to coming rushing in and try to overwhelm one commenter with negativity. And it seems to be you two working as a team to belittle. Can’t say I’ve seen the YF authors doing the same.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 5:09 pm
  • By the way, I’m posting this comment here because my comment has been in spam limbo for the last four hours in the other thread:
    On Igawa, except maybe they didn’t.
    AAA: 68.1 IP, 3.69 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 15 BB, 71 K
    Everyone expects Dice-K to be better but Igawa to continue to suck? All I know is Dice-K was supposed to be an ace, and he turned out to be average. Igawa was supposed to be average and turned out to be below average.
    If one is getting transition time, so should the other. If you expect Igawa to continue to “suck”, then you expect Dice-K to be average. Or if you expect Dice-K to improve, then you expect Igawa to transition too. At least be consistent.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 5:15 pm
  • Wow, strained analogies, mixed metaphors, Paul!
    Awesome, isn’t it?

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 5:24 pm
  • then you expect Igawa to transition too
    I do. I expect his transition to the Pacific Coast League to go very smoothly.

    SF December 3, 2007, 5:25 pm
  • “I do. I expect his transition to the Pacific Coast League to go very smoothly.”
    I have to admit to smiling at this, even while I didn’t like the message.
    I have one very unscientific reason why I would bet more on Dice-K improving than I would on Igawa improving: Body language and temperment.
    Igawa was like the Japanese Weaver last year (and I mean Jeff, not Jared)…kicking the mound, pouting, getting completely psyched out at every little problem. And the fact that they tried to retool his entire delivery in AAA scares me. That is not a minor tweak or reworking.
    I’m not taking any sides on the debates above (at least partially because I am not sure I understand what the sides are…are you guys arguing about positions or arguing about the way you argue??) I just have no faith in Igawa, though I’d love to be proven wrong.

    IronHorse (yf) December 3, 2007, 5:57 pm
  • thanks for the support mike, but i can handle these guys…this is their strategy sometimes…they gang up, duck and dodge the real point, use the bait and switch to change the subject when there’s a point they just can’t win, and when that fails, they fire up the spin machine and rewrite history [see arod]…
    guys, although i could produce at least 2 or 3 of my sox fan acquaintances who would admit to putting ellsbury in the hall of fame, i have to come clean that i couldn’t produce anyone who says buck will win multiple cy youngs…i didn’t attribute those earlier comments to anyone in particular, and didn’t see the need to go back to do so, because they were so obviously absurd, no level-headed participant here would go that far in hyping even an over-hyped player…the exaggeration was obvious…it’s kind of like if you said to me, that you believe i think hank s is so smart he could probably put a man on mars…silly huh?…i wouldn’t bother to challenge you on whether i actually said that, even though i might think he’s pretty smart, and have said so here…get it now?…i think atheose got what i was doing…this reminds me of when i first started posting…you guys are supposed to be better than this petty stuff or are you just f-ing with me…if so, good one, you got me ;)
    if you’re not kidding, are you looking for an apology or a retraction?…if so, i’d say someone owes mike an apology…or at least an answer to his question about what an adequate sample size is for drawing conclusions about a player’s potential…

    dc December 3, 2007, 5:59 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.