Last Home Away Game: Yanks-Mets Gamer IV

Andy Pettitte did a great job against the Mets yesterday, and the Yankee bats were *just* good enough against Johan Santana for the Yankees to guarantee at least a season split against the Metropolitans today; this game would have been the last interleague game of the season, but there’s that pesky rainout to make up at Pittsburgh in July.

Rasner is on the mound today at Shea.  Except for a win over the Padres, his last six starts have ranged from mediocre to bloody awful.  He faces Oliver Perez, who flummoxed the Yankees in May.  Lineups follow, comment away.

Baseball-reference.com preview
 
NY Yankees
J. Damon lf .317
D. Jeter ss .281
A. Rodriguez 3b .327
J. Posada 1b .297
W. Betemit 2b .267
M. Cabrera cf .249
J. Molina c .230
J. Christian rf .250
D. Rasner p 4.50 era, .000
 
NY Mets
J. Reyes ss .294
L. Castillo 2b .253
D. Wright 3b .288
C. Beltran cf .273
C. Delgado 1b .230
R. Church rf .300
E. Chavez lf .228
B. Schneider c .259
O. Perez p .450 era, .200

64 comments… add one

  • Sox thread, plz?

    I'mBillMcNeal June 29, 2008, 2:14 pm
  • Sox thread up.

    attackgerbil June 29, 2008, 2:22 pm
  • Ouch. The two comments on the Yankee thread are about a Sox thread…
    Well, while it is impossible as a YF to not go into every game wanting a win, I have to say I am not that disappointed by their performance this weekend, even though it hands the Mets the season series (I think there was some confusion on that AG in the game-post, but after today the Yankees won two and lost 4 to the Mets this season, including all three at the Stadium). Going in I was concerned that the pitching matchups put the Yanks at fairly serious risk of losing 3 if not all 4 of these games. We couldn’t gain on Tampa Bay, but we picked up .5 vs. Boston. If we could solidify more than 3/5s of our rotation for any considerable period of time, we might start making some real noise…

    IronHorse (yf) June 29, 2008, 9:19 pm
  • “If we could solidify more than 3/5s of our rotation for any considerable period of time, we might start making some real noise…”
    I’d say they have that – Moose, Pettitte, and Joba. The problem though is that, at best, that’s three steps forward, two steps back = .600 WPCT = 97 wins over the full season. They need better than that. Rasner and Giese are fine at #5 but not 4 and 5. And Ponson is no answer – especially not with his peripherals. The real problem is losing Wang, Hughes, and IPK. No team could sustain those losses.

    A YF June 29, 2008, 9:40 pm
  • “I’d say they have that”
    3/5s (Joba, Moose, Andy) ≠ “more than” 3/5s
    We are saying the same thing.

    IronHorse (yf) June 29, 2008, 10:11 pm
  • Except the Sox, who lost Schilling, Buchholz and Beckett/Dice/Colon. Good thing their scouting (Colon) and drafting (Masterson) are good enough to account for such losses.
    Come to think of it, LAA lost far more reliable pitching starts than the Yanks and they’re doing oki-dokie, as well. The book is still out on Texas (better), Milwaukee (same) Atlanta (slightly worse), and Cleveland (much worse, although hardly pitching related).
    Depth is a wonderful thing. Pass it on.

    Anonymous June 29, 2008, 10:30 pm
  • With all due respect to the anonymous poster, no team has lost 3/5s of the starting rotation for more than 2 months per starter as have the Yanks. Facts are a wonderful thing too.

    IronHorse (yf) June 29, 2008, 10:36 pm
  • And for the record, just in case this becomes one of tomorrow (Monday) morning’s plotlines here, no, I do not think the Yankees would be in first if they hadn’t had the pitching injuries they have had. I thought going in this year that our pitching – with two kids not only starting, but likely needing to perform better than #’s 4 and 5 in the rotation – put us at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Boston (didn’t see Tampa Bay coming).
    And before they ever got hurt, those kids did even worse than even most of the skeptics predicted – in other words, their collective health might not have done much for us regardless. SoI am not raising the injury matter as an excuse for past performance – it is a statement of pleasant surprise that we are not further back given those problems and, given that we are not further back, a feeling of confidence that if we were to find a way to solidify the additional 2 spots in the rotation, we’d be as likely as anyone else to be fighting for the division and/or WC come the end of the season, seeing as nobody is running away with anything.

    IronHorse (yf) June 29, 2008, 10:46 pm
  • Correction: No team has lost 3/5ths of their starting rotation to legitimate injuries necessitating months on the DL. The closest is Cleveland, but like the Yanks – they ain’t doing so hot.
    Dirty Water

    Anonymous June 29, 2008, 10:57 pm
  • “Depth is a wonderful thing. Pass it on.”
    Really not a fair or accurate statement. The Yankees did have depth going this season:
    Wang-Pettitte-Hughes-Mussina-IPK. Wang, Hughes and IPK went down. All for significant periods of time, unlike Beckett, Daisuke, etc…Schilling is the only one of the bunch who will be out for an extended period of time.
    They also had pitchers waiting in the wings like Rasner, Karstens (who can’t catch a break injury wise or else he’d would have been here) Igawa and Giese. Plus a cast of not quite ready for prime time youngsters waiting in the wings. Depth is definitely not the issue, not many teams can be prepared for what the Yankees have gone through. You can certainly argue that the Yankees may have made a mistake by counting on IPK and Hughes for such significant innings, but losing Wang is simply just a case of bad luck. NO amount of depth could replace that. Major league teams don’t keep a stash of extra #1′s just sitting around for cases like this.
    Keep in mind the Angels really only lost Kelvim for an extended period of time. Again Lackey was back relatively quickly as compared to any of the 3 injuries that the Yankees suffered. In addition, the Angels were also healthy everywhere else. The Yankees had to deal with the losses of Posada, Alex, etc…all while losing 2/3rds of their opening day rotation. Saunders has stepped up very nicely, but if your honest with yourself I don’t think anyone you or anyone in the Angels org thought that he would do the job he has done thus far.
    In the end I will not use injuries as an excuse. Teams of the Yankees, Sox caliber should be able to win regardless…It’s really the declaration about depth that I am trying to refute and that I have taken issue with.

    John - YF June 29, 2008, 10:58 pm
  • IH we are here (points to each other’s eyes with index and middle finger.) It’s really getting spooky at this point…LOL.

    John - YF June 29, 2008, 11:00 pm
  • I cannot agree with that. What you’re saying (in Sox terms) is that backing up Lester, Buchholz and Wakefield (injuries) with Pauley, Hansack and Snyder is an acceptable plan.

    Dirty Water June 29, 2008, 11:08 pm
  • Thanks John…and for the valid points re: depth.
    And yeah, none of it is an excuse for losing when you have a big enough payroll to be able to ride out stints on the DL for big players, as do the Sox and Yanks.
    It’s just that when anon posters throw out falsehood as fact with an added flair of arrogance, I am pushed to respond…

    IronHorse (yf) June 29, 2008, 11:10 pm
  • DW: Rasner and Karstens are both perfectly acceptable short-term call-ups as they have proved in the past and Giese might be – he has had one great and one bad start for them. I won’t make that case for Igawa. Indeed, this season Rasner was great for the Yanks in his first few starts. You can’t pretend:
    a) that the Sox losing a couple pitchers for brief periods (other than Schilling) is equal to losing 3/5s of your rotation for more than 8 wks each including your #1 for what looks like it will be as much as 12 weeks or more, or
    b)that the pitching patchwork the Sox can do from the minors would be able to effectively fill in for as many as 3 spots in the starting rotation for more than a couple weeks without getting exposed in just the way the Yankees patchwork has been. If so, those guys should all be starting already.
    I believe both John and I are on record here as saying at different points that we think the Sox have the stronger team this year, largely – probably solely – due to the starting pitching and neither of us is arguing that injuries are the reason for the Yanks to be in 3rd place in the division. But we’re happy that they’ve held as close as they have given these injuries – which simply are not comparable to what the Sox have experienced this year as you initially argued here – and believe as a result that if they could find a way to stabilize the remaining 2/5s of the rotation they’d have as good a shot as anyone.
    Regardless of whether I’ve gotten John’s views right those are mine anyway.

    IronHorse (yf) June 30, 2008, 12:04 am
  • Sorry, IH, I read quickly.
    “I do not think the Yankees would be in first if they hadn’t had the pitching injuries they have had.”
    But they’d be a few games closer.
    “And yeah, none of it is an excuse for losing when you have a big enough payroll to be able to ride out stints on the DL for big players, as do the Sox and Yanks.”
    The remarkable thing is they aren’t losing.
    “If so, those guys should all be starting already.”
    That’s exactly right. The “depth” argument is so facetious exactly because no team has the depth that is claimed needed. The Sox would be into Davern Hansack and David Pauley by now. Last time that happened I heard about it from many SF friends.
    “believe as a result that if they could find a way to stabilize the remaining 2/5s of the rotation they’d have as good a shot as anyone.”
    Forget, 2/5s – if they could find one more reliable starter they could make a real run at the playoffs. The 5th starter would be gravy. I’ll be really sad if either is Sidney Ponson and IPK sits in the minors.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 6:30 am
  • Forget, 2/5s – if they could find one more reliable starter they could make a real run at the playoffs.
    Yeah, you and every other major league team. Hell, if the Texas Rangers had one more reliable starter they’d make a real run at the playoffs.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 8:50 am
  • Horse; Wang has been gone for 3 starts and who in their right mind expected 300+ IP from Hughes/Kennedy?
    So how do you qualify “losing Wang, Hughes, and IPK. No team could sustain those losses” when in actuality, at this point, you lost two unreliable kids with 30 career starts, sporting a combined ERA+ of 75, and your most reliable, in Wang, just 2 weeks ago?
    That statement may be valid by years end but right now it is flaccid in comparison to Cleveland losing Carmona, Westbrook and Borowski, LAA losing 25 starts from their #1 and 2, or any of the other aforementioned. You could make a case that the Yanks situation is similar to the Sox, in that The Good Guys lost 9 games from Beckett/Dice/Colon (Wang), a whole season from the unreliable Schilling (Kennedy), and the other unreliable, in Buchholz (Hughes), as is natural for a kid, was sent down, or ‘injured’, because like Hughes and Kennedy he was not ready, but the other named teams obviously have suffered heavier casualties, to date.
    GS:
    Wang 15
    Beckett 15
    Dice 13
    Dirty Water

    Anonymous June 30, 2008, 8:57 am
  • Seriously, you’re lumping in Borowski?
    You’re forgetting, DW, that the Yankee situation doesn’t just apply to now but for the next two to four months as well. Hughes may be back by August. Wang may be back by September. Unless you expect Beckett and/or Dice to lose the rest of the season?
    Furthermore, Cleveland isn’t contending. The Yankees are. That’s exactly the point.
    “Hell, if the Texas Rangers had one more reliable starter they’d make a real run at the playoffs.”
    Really? Who’s their top 3? Millwood at 80 ERA+? Or Gabbard at 84 ERA+? Or Padilla at 99 ERA+?
    The fact is, the Yankee depth, starting the season, looked like:
    1. Wang
    2. Pettitte
    3. Mussina
    4. Hughes
    5. IPK
    6. Rasner
    7. Igawa
    8. Karstens
    9. Horne
    Of that 9, 6 will have been hurt for significant stretches of the season. That’s a fact and no organization could plan for that level of decimation. That they’re in the hunt at all is remarkable.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 9:08 am
  • Yeah, no offense to the YF’s here but based on the way Hughes and IPK performed (8.09 ERA in 14 starts) and how their replacements have fared (3.21 ERA in 18 starts by Rasner, Chamberlain, Giese and Ponson), I’d say losing them was a good thing.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 9:09 am
  • Really? Who’s their top 3? Millwood at 80 ERA+? Or Gabbard at 84 ERA+? Or Padilla at 99 ERA+?
    And yet despite that their offense has kept them over .500 for most of the season. If they had a reliable starter it could “make a real run at the playoffs”, to use your exact words.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 9:12 am
  • Meanwhile, this statement:
    “LAA losing 25 starts from their #1 and 2″
    is very misleading (and appears to be flat out false).
    The only starter to miss significant time is Lackey and even he has 9 starts and almost 70 innings and is back in the game.
    Every other starter has at least 16 starts and over 100 innings at the halfway point. I don’t see how 65 starts (of 82 games) and 400 innings from four of five starters is a disadvantage.

    A June 30, 2008, 9:16 am
  • “to use your exact words.”
    And completely out of context.
    “I’d say losing them was a good thing.”
    Not long term it’s not. And since you don’t seem to be paying attention, that’s exactly what this season was set up to be (see again, Joba).

    A YF June 30, 2008, 9:18 am
  • See, what’s interesting to me – the Yankees went to Ponson (and Giese) when they really had no other choice. Call me very satisfied regardless of how this season turns out.
    And I should have completed the math for LAA:
    Top 5 starters = 74 starts of 82 games and 470 innings.
    How exactly does that equal “LAA losing 25 starts from their #1 and 2″?
    I call BS.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 9:23 am
  • How is it out of context? You said that if the Yankees had one more reliable starter they could make a push at the playoffs. Most of the teams in baseball that are in the same could make a playoff push if they had one more “reliable starter” (with the exception of the A’s, who have enough pitching). How did I quote you out of context?
    Also, here’s your original argument:
    The real problem is losing Wang, Hughes, and IPK. No team could sustain those losses.
    Losing Wang is DEFINITELY a serious problem, maybe one the Yankees cannot bounce back from. But the replacements for Hughes and IPK have put the Yankees in a position to win ballgames, which is all the Yankees could have asked for.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 9:26 am
  • Please, Atheose. You know exactly what I’m talking about and bringing up the Texas Rangers (with not one decent starter) is just being argumentative.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 9:40 am
  • Joe Borowski? Really? I don’t even think the Indians thought twice about that loss. At the time they thought Betancourt would excel in that role. Unfortunately for them it didn’t work out, but like I said at the time they had high hopes.
    Also as A said DW is putting things in terms of “So Far.” You can’t figure out importance of injuries without taking into consideration HOW LONG they will be out.
    PS – Escobar is close to making a rehab start apparently. Would be back way sooner than Hughes or Wang.
    As for Hughes and IPK, if you read my statement I said you could fault the Yankees for counting on them, but never the less they WERE COUNTED on. So when you lose 2/5′s of the rotation, then your ace times could get tough for stretches.
    No excuses, just stating facts.

    John - YF June 30, 2008, 9:53 am
  • You’re rebuttal only proves my point! The Rangers have been over .500 the entire season (thanks to the 3rd-best offense in baseball) and if they had a “reliable starter” they could make a playoff push.
    Here, I’ll give you 20 more examples. The Yankees rank 17th in baseball when it comes to starters ERA. The following teams:
    -New York Mets (40-41)
    -Los Angeles Dodgers (38-43)
    -Milwaukee Brewers (44-37)
    -Atlanta Braves (40-43)
    -Detroit Tigers (41-40)
    -Baltimore Orioles (41-39)
    -Houston Astros (39-43)
    Are all in the playoff picture, and could “make a real run at the playoffs” if they added a reliable starter to their team.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 9:58 am
  • AYF, your original argument was:
    The real problem is losing Wang, Hughes, and IPK. No team could sustain those losses.
    The Yankees HAVE sustained those losses thanks to the success of their replacements. Then you argue:
    Forget, 2/5s – if they could find one more reliable starter they could make a real run at the playoffs.
    Which is asinine considering 1) The Yankees are already making a real run at the playoffs, and 2) You could apply that statement to most of the teams in the league and it would still hold water.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 10:02 am
  • And of those, how many already have *three* reliable starters? Once you answer that you will have placed my quote in context.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 10:04 am
  • Ummmm, Escobar?
    Borowski: Yes, I consider a closer with an 83% success ratio the last two years as valuable to a team as a 4 or 5. Borowski may suck but his brand of suckiness still results in success (81 S). I would also argue that his loss tore apart a perfectly fine bullpen which in 2007 knew exactly what their roles were.
    As far as Hughes and Kennedy being ‘out’, am I the only one who believes their injuries were dubious, at best? I would argue that if they both were not so overmatched early on they would be pitching today. Ask the Sox about Buchholz; sometimes the DL is a convenience.
    As far as the Rangers: You said “losing Wang, Hughes, and IPK. No team could sustain those losses”, yet the Rangers have3. You may not appreciate their starters but the fact remains they lost more from who they were relying upon than the Yanks, and they’re doing better. And, really, in what world do Jennings and McCarthy not compare to the performances of Hughes and Kennedy?

    Dirty Water June 30, 2008, 10:04 am
  • So the need for a “reliable starter” is only applicable if a team already has three reliable starters? Once again your logic (or lack thereof) makes me laugh.
    Then again your comments in the first place (“no team could sustain those losses” and “..they could make a real run at the playoffs”) make zero sense because the Yankees have sustained those losses and already are making a playoff push. But I guess you’ll keep ignoring those.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 10:09 am
  • So LAA getting 74 starts (of 82 games) from 5 pitchers equals the Yankee situation, how?
    Right, Atheose, cause weren’t first talking about the 3 of 5 and then adding one. Reading is fun!!!111!

    A YF June 30, 2008, 10:14 am
  • “As far as Hughes and Kennedy being ‘out’, am I the only one who believes their injuries were dubious, at best?”
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    Lyndon Johnson also ordered the assassination of JFK. Cheney ordered 9/11. And aliens already control your mind.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 10:18 am
  • LA has done well because Garland, Santana and Saunders stepped up when Lackey and Escobar went down. That situation is exactly to the point here as my comment ‘depth is a wonderful thing’ indicates.

    Anonymous June 30, 2008, 10:19 am
  • And Weaver? He was some unproven schmuck at the start of the season?

    A YF June 30, 2008, 10:25 am
  • Please.. Jered has an ERA+ of 124 in 64 career games. You are not actually comparing him to Hughes or Kennedy, are you?

    Anonymous June 30, 2008, 10:31 am
  • You are not actually comparing him to Hughes or Kennedy, are you?
    Ummmm, no.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 10:33 am
  • Yankees: Pettitte (101 ERA+) Mussina (102 ERA+) Chamberlain (198 ERA+)
    Mets: Santana (135 ERA+) John Maine (109 ERA+) Mike Pelfrey (91 ERA+)
    Dodgers: Lowe (113 ERA+) Billingsly (192 ERA+) Kuroda (108 ERA+)
    Brewers: Parra (109 ERA+) Sheets (151 ERA+) Suppan (106 ERA+)
    Braves: Hudson (123 ERA+) Jurrjens (139 ERA+) Reyes (98 ERA+)
    Tigers: Galarraga (124 ERA+) Bonderman (96 ERA+) Verlander (93 ERA+)
    Astros: Rodriguez (163 ERA+) Moehler (110 ERA+) Oswalt (98 ERA+)
    Shall we continue?

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 10:41 am
  • Right. I got that on the reread.
    So instead what you are saying is that with Jered they had the depth to counter their two losses?
    of their number 1 and 2 starters? really? so if Saunders stunk, Santana continued winning only at home, and they never traded for Garland they would be fine?
    As is said more than a few times in a fav movie of mine, ‘bullocks’!

    Anonymous June 30, 2008, 10:44 am
  • And those are just the teams that fall under your “this is what I’m talking about so we can’t include anything outside my decided scope of range nah-nah-nah!” category. There are plenty of other teams who would have a much greater chance of make a legitimate playoff push (like the Rangers) if they added a reliable starter to their team.
    And you still haven’t mentioned your other two crazy comments (“no team could sustain those losses” and “..they could make a real run at the playoffs”), neither of which make any sense!

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 10:44 am
  • Well I’ve had a busy morning work-wise and won’t have the time to engage all day in this back & forth, but just a couple quick points:
    1) DW, on how “real” were the injuries to Hughes and Kennedy: if they were faked, then both pitchers would have gone from the majors to minor league starts right away. You don’t hold guys out of any action simply to cover their butts for poor performance. They both have been rehabing for weeks. After straining a lat muscle on May 27, IPK made his first start nearly a month later just last week (striking out 7 over 3 IP). He’s still a couple weeks at least from re-emerging and probably won’t until after the All-Star break. As for PH, after going on the DL on April 30 and being subsequently diagnosed with a broken rib, he just started a throwing program this past weekend and so is nowhere near returning to the club. Were they both sucking while they started? Yes. So much so that I advocated sending at least one of them down even before they got injured. But their injuries were clearly real.
    2) DW (again) on likening the Yanks’ situation to that of the Sox: there are two different methods of comparison. You keep going back to your percepion of the relative quality of starters who have missed games. Thus you lump cumulative Beckett/Dice-K/Colon missed games (very dubious to include Colon at the level of the other two or Wang incidentally) with those of Wang; you cite the poor quality of the PH/IPK starts prior to injuries, etc. This is not the valid method of comparison for this debate because I have already conceded – in fact volunteered – that the Yankee starting rotation was not as good as that of Boston going into the 2008 season. Going into the season (i.e. before Joba joined the Yanks rotation and Mussina rediscovered how to pitch), the only starting slot in the rotation where I felt the Yankees matched the Boston pitcher was the #2 slot (Pettitte)and POSSIBLY #4 (depending on how well Hughes would adjust). So gauging whether they’ve each lost pitchers of similar quality is not so much the issue as gauging what the relative importance of each lost pitcher is to each team. You can do this by listing who the top 5 in the rotation of each team were at the start of the season and then ask how many games members of that top 5 have missed and are certain to miss going forward (given that 3/5s of the Yankees’ original top 5, including their # 1, are all to be out for several more weeks each and – for Boston – this is only the case for Schilling). Regardless of comparative quality of starters, when you lose that much of your starting 5 for large chunks of time you are forced to rely heavily on your bullpen, to dip deep into your back-ups and – more roublnig over time – to rely on them for far longer than they will be able to fool major league hitters. The Yankees have had to do that. Boston has not.
    And the end result of all that overanalysis is that – given those injuries to the Yanks starting 5 – I’m happy with where the team is. They’ve stayed within striking distance with periodic mashing by the offense and stronger than expected pitching from the 2 old men in the rotation, esp. Mussina (i.e. esp. unexpected).
    I’ve felt for a while – and most acutely just before this last Mets series – that they were one week of EXPOSED starting pitching away from falling into a deep deficit. Having so far avoided that, if the old men can keep it up and Joba continues to prove himself as a starter, I think we’ll still need at least one more reliable starter – even if only at the #4 level – to compete for the division, but that’s not at all bad given where we’ve been this season.

    IronHorse (yf) June 30, 2008, 11:40 am
  • I’m happy with where the team is. They’ve stayed within striking distance with periodic mashing by the offense and stronger than expected pitching
    I think that’s how most YF’s should feel. That’s why I was surprised by AYF saying “No team could sustain those losses”, considering the Yankees were still in it.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 11:57 am
  • “Shall we continue?”
    Now, which teams have had 6 of their top 9 out with significant injuries.
    Then we have a legit comparison…
    Reading is fun-da-mental!!!!111!!!

    Anonymous June 30, 2008, 12:23 pm
  • me

    A YF June 30, 2008, 12:28 pm
  • And of those, how many already have *three* reliable starters? Once you answer that you will have placed my quote in context.
    I called your bluff and listed half the league. You then change the argument again, because nothing you say holds any water.
    Ever heard of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy? Take a look. You’re like the posterchild for argumental fallacies!

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 12:41 pm
  • I am with Ironhorse – YFs should be quite pleased that they are only five back. But citing IPK and Hughes and their lack of contribution as a major factor in that is a bit disingenuous. These guys were simply not expected to be linchpins – there was a lot of talk before the season about the risks of having two (and three, once Joba was moved) rookies in the rotation. Same with Buchholz – he was looked at as a big question mark. Their injuries (all three of theirs) are analogous, to me, to poor performance, a distinct possibility expected by many. Wang, Posada, A-Rod, (and now Matsui, though his defense is awful so that may be a wash with his replacements, if not an improvement) those are very serious blows, missed action from proven players whose performances could be measured and whose past work could have been used in some reasonable and predictive manner. But Kennedy and Hughes entered the season as big risks, and their absence just isn’t a big factor. Had there been timely hitting earlier in the season (when A-Rod et al were healthy) the Yankees would be in even better shape.

    SF June 30, 2008, 12:51 pm
  • Yeah, the Yankees (and their fans) should be ecstatic with the way the replacements for Hughes and IPK have performed. Hell, the argument could be made that the Yankees would have a worse record had they NOT gotten injured.

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 12:58 pm
  • “You then change the argument again, because nothing you say holds any water.”
    Ummmm, Atheose – reading comprehension test:
    Question 1: How did this discussion begin?
    That is all.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 3:33 pm
  • “Had there been timely hitting earlier in the season (when A-Rod et al were healthy) the Yankees would be in even better shape.”
    No argument there from me. That of course is another issue. Problem is, they still have the pitching troubles going forward. The hitting has mostly balanced itself out.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 3:34 pm
  • And again I refer you to the No True Scotsman story. Maybe you’ll learn something ;-)

    Atheose June 30, 2008, 4:01 pm
  • This discussion began with you making the boastful statement “losing Wang, Hughes, and IPK. No team could sustain those losses”.
    After much debate it has been realized that:
    1) The statement refers to games already played so Wang and his 3 missed starts should be discluded. Or else a fair Sox comparison would include Beckett and Dice.
    2) The Yanks are probably fortunate that Hughes and Kennedy were sent dow… err, injured.
    3) Other teams have suffered worse losses. Some have fared better, some not.
    4) Every team in MLB would be doing better by adding another quality starter.
    5) Everyone calling Cashman crazy for entering the season relying on two young kids in the starting rotation has been proven correct.
    Dirty Water

    Dirty Water June 30, 2008, 5:00 pm
  • This discussion began with you making the boastful statement “losing Wang, Hughes, and IPK. No team could sustain those losses”.
    After much debate it has been realized that:
    1) The statement refers to games already played so Wang and his 3 missed starts should be discluded. Or else a fair Sox comparison would include Beckett and Dice.
    2) The Yanks are probably fortunate that Hughes and Kennedy were sent dow… err, injured.
    3) Other teams have suffered worse losses. Some have fared better, some not.
    4) Every team in MLB would be doing better by adding another quality starter.
    5) Everyone calling Cashman crazy for entering the season relying on two young kids in the starting rotation has been proven correct.
    Dirty Water

    Dirty Water June 30, 2008, 5:01 pm
  • on fridays double header game thread A-yf originally posted the “3/5ths our rotation”, “still in contention”, and “who could sustain that?” sentiments. i think alot of YF’s fail to realize that the rest of the league would love to have IPK and PH healthy and pitching for the yanks. the part thats amazing to me is that the yanks went into the season without a backup plan for a rotation that boasted a 36 and 39 year old player followed by 2 unproven rookies. as i said on fridays game thread, to use the wang crutch after only missing 2 starts might seem a little early. to say “the yanks are still in contention and they’ve been without 3/5ths rotation” is somewhat disingenuous. if we’re looking for silver lining it should be the orioles happy that they are “still in contention” with a -3 run differential (and hell, they don’t even have 1/5th a rotation).
    one thing i don’t get is how easy it is for yf’s to blow off the loss of schilling as if it had no impact on the sox rotation. by the time the sox learned he was going to be out till at least july, it was too late to make a move. at least in the yanks case they knew what they were going into the season with….2 older players and 2 unproven players making up 4/5ths their rotation.

    sf rod June 30, 2008, 5:01 pm
  • “the part thats amazing to me is that the yanks went into the season without a backup plan for a rotation that boasted a 36 and 39 year old player followed by 2 unproven rookies.”
    Since some SFs don’t seem to pay much attention – to what is written here or what is happening:
    The Yanks were intent on rebuilding this year while trying to still contend. But the emphasis was on the former. Sorry if that’s a surprise to you – but they were selling 4 million tix regardless of what happened on the field.
    “1) The statement refers to games already played so Wang and his 3 missed starts should be discluded. Or else a fair Sox comparison would include Beckett and Dice.”
    Again, you fail to realize the impact going forward. Unless you want to pull a Harding on Dice’s knee?
    “2) The Yanks are probably fortunate that Hughes and Kennedy were sent dow… err, injured.”
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That makes a ton of sense on so many levels. Really.
    “3) Other teams have suffered worse losses. Some have fared better, some not.”
    Right, cause LAA has fared “better” with 74 starts (of 82 games) from 5 guys. Fantastic comparison!
    “4) Every team in MLB would be doing better by adding another quality starter.”
    Ummmm, you and Atheose both need work on your reading comprehension. Really.
    “5) Everyone calling Cashman crazy for entering the season relying on two young kids in the starting rotation has been proven correct.”
    Except when you take the two minutes to realize and understand that this year was never about this year. See again, Chamberlain, Joba.
    Wow, I expect more from SFs around here. You guys are a poor substitute for the real thing.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 5:11 pm
  • “by the time the sox learned he was going to be out till at least july, it was too late to make a move.”
    Ummmm, except the move they made directly in response was to sign Colon.
    So funny. I’m at Yankee Stadium on Saturday. Please God let them activate him in time.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 5:26 pm
  • Again, you fail to realize the impact going forward.
    feel free to use the wang crutch in a month or two as we go forward. to say at this date, “still in contention while missing 3/5ths our rotation” is to neglect the fact that wang had a big part in keeping you in contention while you were minus 2/5ths your rotation.
    and to be fair, i personally had no idea this was a rebuilding year for the yanks. a lot of times “rebuilding” is associated with trimming of payroll and cutting ties with aging veterans. i didn’t see that with the ’08 yanks. the only real difference between the ’07 and ’08 yanks is IPK in the rotation instead of igawa / clemens. was ’07 a rebuilding year as well?

    sf rod June 30, 2008, 5:33 pm
  • Wow, I expect more from SFs around here. You guys are a poor substitute for the real thing.
    Yeah, because when Paul puts up thoroughly researched threads you are the first person willing to acknowledge his hard work.
    You are such a phony.
    (and I have finally figured out what ex-Governors do with their spare time)

    SF June 30, 2008, 5:51 pm
  • There’s a lot less to complain about in Paul’s work. He isn’t so ridiculous to ignore what’s said nor resort to conspiracy theories. So there’s that.
    “i didn’t see that with the ’08 yanks.”
    Since you haven’t realized it, relying two “unproven” starters from April is the Yankee version of rebuilding. So is transitioning a dominant relievers to the rotation because it’s best for his development. So is a bullpen with consistently three or four rookie arms.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 5:51 pm
  • There’s a lot less to complain about in Paul’s work. He isn’t so ridiculous to ignore what’s said nor resort to conspiracy theories. So there’s that.
    By the way, nice job setting the example, SF. What next, you’ll allude to my argument while covering a heinous crime. Oh right you’ve already done that, Turd Blossom.
    “i didn’t see that with the ’08 yanks.”
    Since you haven’t realized it, relying two “unproven” starters from April is the Yankee version of rebuilding. So is transitioning a dominant relievers to the rotation because it’s best for his development. So is a bullpen with consistently three or four rookie arms.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 5:53 pm
  • What next, you’ll allude to my argument while covering a heinous crime.
    Who said it has to be heinous?

    SF June 30, 2008, 5:56 pm
  • Ummmm, except the move they made directly in response was to sign Colon.
    yup, we grabbed at straws because all that was left were straws at that point.
    So funny. I’m at Yankee Stadium on Saturday. Please God let them activate him in time.
    as much as you can’t wait to face a one year rental in colon, sf’s are licking their chops for hughes to get activated for many years to come. the 7 runs the sox put up in phils 2 innings of work earlier this year would be a welcome wake up call for our sputtering offense.

    sf rod June 30, 2008, 5:58 pm
  • By the way, SF, your wife only charges $50/hour.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 6:02 pm
  • This has become exactly the kind of name-calling, one-upping “insult-fest” into which yf-sf debates outside of this normally admirable blog inevitably deteriorate. I regret having been any part of it.

    IronHorse (yf) June 30, 2008, 6:05 pm
  • IH -
    Blame your fellow moderator to set a better example. When it’s coming from him all hell will break loose. Sad really. Besides many “asinine” things being said, it was mostly civil until he showed up.

    A YF June 30, 2008, 6:09 pm

Leave a Comment