Just Win, Baby

Let’s clear something up here. Murray Chass is wrong. It makes absolutely no difference if the Red Sox win a World Series and don’t have to go through New York. His article telegraphs the local spin that will occur if that scenario plays out: the championship is sullied or somehow lessened because the Sox didn’t beat the Yankees. WRONG. One isolated anonymous emailing fan named “Daniel” (now there’s some ballsy sourcing, Murray) can’t change the fact that Chass is trying to pre-tarnish any Red Sox championship.

If the Sox win, they are the champs, and it will mean the world to us, Yankees roadkill or not.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Don’t count your chickens (or cardinals) before they’ve hatched.

    YF October 8, 2004, 9:18 am
  • I am not counting anything, only remarking on Chass’s pre-emptive spin on any hypothetical Sox win (hence the “if that scenario plays out” phrase and the generally heavy use of the word “if”, which you apparently missed). Read the post and respond accordingly, please.

    SF October 8, 2004, 9:29 am
  • SF,
    I agree. That is totally ridiculous. A WS won’t mean as much because you didn’t beat a certain team to get there? J.C. some writers really struggle to find something to write about. IF, and it’s a big IF, the Twinkies beat the Yankees, then they are obviously the tougher team.
    Who would the Yankees have to beat for their WS to mean something? Of their 26 championships how many are meaningless now? Chass should hang up his pen, typewriter, laptop, whatever.
    On a side note, do people read what they write? I have been to many blogs, boards, such as SoSH, Curse of the Bambino, Bronx Banter, etc. There are a lot of Bill James disciples out there, number crunching geeks, who think they can quantify a players worth based totally on statistics. They have ridiculous measures sometimes, such as a Game Score for pitchers, which when put to the test don’t make sense. Using Game Score a pitcher could pitch a perfect game and have a lower game score than a pitcher who gives up 2 runs and loses the game just because he has more K’s. Anyway that is just one example. The reason I get upset is that many people use these statistics to say there is no such thing as a ‘clutch’ player. They ridicule people who dare say Derek Jeter is a clutch player or a winner. They poke fun calling hom Mr. Intangible, Captain Intangible, whatever. Then these same dumbasses say things like this:
    Here’s Eric Neel on ESPN’s Page 2 speaking of last night’s Atlanta vs Houston game:
    “Eric: Part of what I love about this kind of moment, and it’s easy for me to say because I’m not rooting for the Braves, is the way the pressure of the playoffs seems to sit so heavy on a guy’s shoulder in any given instant. Run, don’t run, RUN! The guy hangs in the balance between being goat and hero, and he knows it, and you can’t say exactly what effect it has on him, but you can see, in the stutter step, something that looks a whole lot like his trying to cope with that feeling and think clearly through it.”
    Tons of fans at SoSH were calling for Mark Bellhorn’s head 2 days ago after his brainfart getting picked off second.
    These are the same people who refuse to appreciate Jeter’s play. Jeter doesn’t make these kind of mistakes. He is decisive, such as when he tagged up 2 days ago, Jacque Jones was caught unprepared. Now I don’t want turn this into one big Jeter slobbering party, but people need to get a clue. Some people can handle pressure, others fold, some are oblivious to it, eg. Manny Ramirez, does he know the regular season is over and now they are in the playoffs? Does he care? How long do you think he felt bad after the Sox were eliminated last year? Did he even realize the Sox tried to dump him over the offseason? Manny is a great hitter, all the time, playoffs or not. However his head isn’t in the game sometimes. Jeter is always in the game, he’s always aware of what’s going on, he’s always thinking ahead. Does that make him clutch? Call it what you like, but there is a difference in the level of motivation, and the ability to handle pressure between players. Just because sabermetrician stat geeks can’t quantify it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s why I’ll take the Yankees lineup over the Sox any day.
    Curt Schilling however is another story he gets it, he’s clutch, he steps up. It is not a coincidence he’s at his best now, he understands that this is why players are remembered. Statistics don’t tell the whole story, a stat geek will look at his line from Monday’s game and say he gave up 3 ER’s and that it got an avg GS. The truth is he was in complete control the whole time and he coasted the rest of the way, a la Jack Morris. If the Sox are going to beat the Yankees it will be because Schilling will do it, with a little help from Manny’s oblivious bat. And maybe a little help from David Ortiz. It seems Big Papi’s been a little clutch in the past as well.

    Joe (YF) October 8, 2004, 9:38 am
  • Joe raises an interesting point, here: as much as we rely on them, and as enlightening as they’ve become thanks to some exceptional analytical work, stats will never tell us everything about a game, a team, or a player. Which is one reason I’ve always resisted rotiserie baseball. Take the humanity out of the game, and it’s lost what makes it special.

    YF October 8, 2004, 10:12 am
  • Nicely hijacked thread, guys. It’s all about the Yankees, as Chass states, I guess.

    SF October 8, 2004, 11:10 am
  • Testy! Whoever wins the WS is the champ and that’s that, period. Will we be disappointed if there’s not another Yanks-Sox series? Damn right (this is Yanksfan-vs.-Soxfan, afterall.)

    YF October 8, 2004, 11:56 am

Next post:

Previous post: