Slumming

410w

(photo from the Boston Globe)

Bill tells Joe and Brian what it’s like to win in the oughts.

72 comments… add one

  • what? 2000 doesn’t count?!!

    Nick-YF March 25, 2007, 12:42 pm
  • Nope, 2001 was officially the start of the new millenium.

    Andrew March 25, 2007, 12:49 pm
  • technicalities

    Nick-YF March 25, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • 6 years since we’ve won. It’s tough.
    Makes me wonder how Sox fans survived 86 years.

    Whatever March 25, 2007, 1:41 pm
  • Many didn’t, WE!

    SF March 25, 2007, 1:46 pm
  • Meanwhile, Jeff Karstens, with the opportunity of a lifetime, needing to pitch well with a chance to quite possibly join the Yanks rotation, is getting knocked around including a 3 run shot by Mr. Sheffield. Bleah.

    Whatever March 25, 2007, 1:46 pm
  • Sheff with another RBI on a sac fly to center, and on the play I am reminded that Johnny Damon throws the ball about as hard as my two and half year old.

    SF March 25, 2007, 1:51 pm
  • yeah, Karstens could have stepped up nicely today and let the Yankees know he was ready to take a gig or two for them, and well, you can’t really blame him. It’ is Gary Sheffield, after all. But as a whole, he can’t leave the ball that open to mashing and expect anything different

    Brad March 25, 2007, 1:57 pm
  • Youkilis looks considerably bigger than last year, me thinks. Also, he’s hitting the ball much harder.
    Lugo on first. Youk walks. Ortiz up. No outs. This is going to happen an awful lot this year.

    Brad March 25, 2007, 1:59 pm
  • Ortiz a big double, both score, and now Manny and Drew with still no outs.

    Brad March 25, 2007, 2:02 pm
  • Woof – nice play by A-Rod, a medium-hard liner hits a prematurely closed glove. Not pretty.

    SF March 25, 2007, 2:12 pm
  • And then he turns right around and makes a nice play preventing an extra-base hit. Man’s an enigma, but I’ll take him.

    Andrew March 25, 2007, 2:52 pm
  • SF, you forgot to add that after Belichick told Torre and Cash what its like to win in the oughts, he gave them a quick do’s and dont’s lesson on having an adulterous affair.

    bloodyank78 March 25, 2007, 4:53 pm
  • Bill: “It really is no big deals guys, I’m telling you, a totally meaningless distinction…for example, the Red Sox won in the oughts, and who even remembers that? The late ’90s Yankees, man I would give anything be involved in a dynasty of that magnitude.”

    tom yf March 25, 2007, 5:58 pm
  • The NY Times (bats.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/yankees) is reporting that Karstens is hurt:
    “Breaking news from Yankees camp, and it’s not good: Jeff Karstens is hurt, too.
    A day after the Yankees announced that Chien-Ming Wang will start the season on the disabled list with a pulled hamstring, Karstens left his start against the Detroit Tigers after two innings and just 46 pitches. He was rattled for six runs on six hits, and there’s a reason.
    His elbow is stiff.
    “I didn’t want to push it too much,” Karstens said. “”I never really got loose. Anytime you have something wrong, it kind of concerns you. But not too much.””

    mattymatty March 25, 2007, 6:08 pm
  • 2000 is the oughts. Sox fans are the Lucys of baseball.
    LoHud confirms the hurt elbow story. Perhaps hints that Joe and Gator are a little annoyed that Karstens didn’t tell them before the game.

    john March 25, 2007, 6:28 pm
  • Saw Beckett on NESN this afternoon, and he looked gooood. He threw a couple of nasty changeups, and he was hammering the strike zone. Good signs…

    Paul SF March 25, 2007, 6:58 pm
  • I sure hope it’s a good sign, Paul. Beckett’s quietly put together a nice spring: 3.04 ERA, 24/4 K/BB ratio and just one homerun allowed in 23 2/3 innings. Small sample size caveats apply, of couse, so one can’t read too much into it, but still…it’s hard not to be encouraged. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
    Not that I’m going to cry doom for the Yankees, but in light of Karsten’s injury how comfortables do YFs feel with that “pitching depth” right now? As the 2006 Red Sox proved, pitching depth can evaporate very quickly.

    mouse - SF March 25, 2007, 7:16 pm
  • “Saw Beckett on NESN this afternoon, and he looked gooood.”
    Last year Beckett started off the season looking gooood, and then he, with a propensity for giving up gopher balls, starting looking baaaad.

    Whatever March 25, 2007, 7:32 pm
  • Saw Beckett on NESN this afternoon, and he looked gooood.”
    Last year Beckett started off the season looking gooood, and then he, with a propensity for giving up gopher balls, started looking baaaad.

    Whatever March 25, 2007, 7:40 pm
  • HOYAS!!

    mattymatty March 25, 2007, 7:55 pm
  • Joe’s thinking: “Damn, if I only had Julian Tavarez as my fifth starter instead of Darrell Rasner.”

    Hudson March 25, 2007, 9:42 pm
  • “Last year Beckett started off the season looking gooood, and then he, with a propensity for giving up gopher balls, starting looking baaaad.”
    Because he wasn’t throwing his chaaange or curve, which he is this year. Spotting that 4-seamer a lot better, too.
    A 24/4 K-BB ratio in 23 innings is sick, and that doesn’t include the Ks he had against BC.

    Steve March 25, 2007, 10:10 pm
  • Err, Jeff Karstens was one fringey pitcher. There’s still Rasner, and then the likes of nearly major-league ready guys like Hughes and Clippard who have pristene minor league numbers. Unlike wonder-boy Lester, who (and I don’t want to take away anything from his miraculous recovery from lymphoma) always walked way too many in the minors, and it showed, showed immensely, in the majors. Yankees have major-league ready pitching depth, and then they have the best pitching in the minors out of anybody. Sorry, but ‘losing’ Karstens (and he never got loose in warmups, this isn’t a right arm injury or a hamstring tear) doesn’t completely negate the amount of pitching the Yankees have, and will have in the very near future.

    Andrew March 25, 2007, 10:14 pm
  • Wonder-boy Lester has managed to show success at the major-league level (5-0 with a 2.7 ERA before his back became an issue,) something none of your “pitching depth” has, and that’s without knowing how badly that cancer was really affecting his body (and therefore, his endurance and mechanics.) That shit doesn’t just show up randomly one day, you know.
    As well, Gabbard also showed success (3.5 ERA) in a major league stint, although it admittedly was a small sample size of 5 or 6 starts.
    As well, “the best pitching in the minors?” Hughes is at the top of the list with the kid from Cincy, but outside of that? Boston has a TON of live arms and extreme potential with guys like Buchholz, Bowden, Bard, Cox, Hansen, Delcarmen, Johnson, and Masterson, and I wouldn’t make a blanket statement like that about them. Other teams with a ton of arms in surplus, like Minnesota for example, would argue that one as well.

    Steve March 25, 2007, 10:23 pm
  • “Because he wasn’t throwing his chaaange or curve”.
    And why wasn’t he throwing his change (which btw, isn’t much) or his curve last year? Bliiiiisters.
    Oh, and Steve. Find me one baseball analysis site that ranks the Sox current minor league pitching better than the Yankees.

    Whatever March 25, 2007, 10:51 pm
  • Can we change the caption to “Bill teaches Joe what it’s like to have sex with a mistress in New Jersey”?

    yankeesnj March 25, 2007, 11:02 pm
  • “And why wasn’t he throwing his change (which btw, isn’t much) or his curve last year? Bliiiiisters.”
    Which are now being treated through medication because it’s now believed the true reason for them was his eczema breakouts, not his curveball. When his fastball is 96 and his change is 88, that’s plenty enough.
    “Oh, and Steve. Find me one baseball analysis site that ranks the Sox current minor league pitching better than the Yankees.”
    Did I say the Sox’s minor league pitching was better? No, but thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I said there’s a lot of other teams that would take issue with that statement, and even with Boston’s huge collection of plus live arms (who will make the system looked stacked once they all get more developmental time,) I wouldn’t use a blanket statement like that to describe them.
    Sorry that I’m not impressed by the “pitching depth” that has Pavano as the opening day starter and Rasner as a leading candidate to join the rotation.

    Steve March 25, 2007, 11:31 pm
  • “Outside of that?” Jeez, you really know nothing about the Yankee system. Like, at all. Even I knew about the Red Sox that Daniel Bard was an overrated starting prospect who only has two above-average pitches and nothing else.
    Steve – do a little research before making extreme homer comments. Lester was never the ace you made him out to be. If you even watched his starts with an observant eye you’d know he walked the bases so many times – thus mirroring his not as great as you’d like to think minor league career, and then got lucky when someone like David Wright completely choked. He posted a 4.5+ BB/9 ratio in AAA – and then posted a higher one in the majors. Needless to say he was due to get bombed even more than he did.
    And what are you saying – you’re either disagreeing with the fact that the Yankees have the best pitching in the minors by using Boston as an example – therefore implying that Boston has a better system than the Yanks, or you’re not. That’s not putting words in your mouth, that’s repeating back to you what you just said. The Yankees have the best pitching right now – it’s been said by very reputable sources who actually write about this stuff professionally – which I guess means they have the best potential for their pitching to do well. We’ll see how this season shakes things up, but please don’t discount the Yankee system by trying to say the Boston system is better. Seriously, it’s not by any stretch of the imagination.

    Andrew March 26, 2007, 12:31 am
  • You guys really are experts at putting words in people’s mouths? Let’s review:
    Did I ever say Lester was an ace? No.
    Did I ever say Bard was anything more than a live arm? No. (By the way, how can he be overrated if you haven’t seen any real action of him, he’s only 21, and he already has one plus-plus pitch and is at the developmental stage of working on secondary stuff? Who’s the homer here, exactly?)
    Did I say Boston’s young pitchers were better than NY’s? No.
    I said that Lester has had proven major league success already (a fact, regardless of the walk stats which are all that you focus on,) and that I wouldn’t use a blanket statement like “best” in regards to the Yankee system (or the potential of the young Boston hurlers, who in a year or two will likely be at the top of the prospect charts?)
    Color me unimpressed by guys like Clippard, Sanchez (hurting again BTW,) and Beam. Minor league stats are wonderful, get it done in the majors (same reason I’m not applying any tags to our young arms.)
    Also unimpressed by this “depth” that you homers (gee, I can blindly throw that word around too) keep going on about when you’re down two starters already, another’s got a balking back, and of the three left, one is 39, the other is an unknown with control issues, and the last is Carl Pavano.

    Steve March 26, 2007, 3:04 am
  • I don’t see where Steve called Lester an ace. He merely defended him against your unprovoked attack, by pointing out that he started out 5 and 0 with a 2.70 ERA before wearing out a little. Cancer will do that to you. Sure he walked more than a few hitters, but he showed remarkable poise for a 22 year old and managed to get out of some sticky situations. You say Wright choked, I say he got beat.
    No one is claiming Lester is an ace. But he is a gamer, and his command will get better. There are plenty of examples of guys that struggled with control early in their careers but turned into pretty good pitchers. Check the early stats on Halladay, Glavine, Smoltz, Johnson, Rogers and even Maddux.
    On another topic –
    Baseballprospctus ranks the Yanks minor league pitching at No. 1. You have 5 pitching prospects ranked “good” or better (Hughes is the only “excellent”). The Sox are at No. 9, with 4 ranked good or better (Bucholz is our “excellent”). Lester isn’t on the list, I assume because in the eyes of BP he established himself as a major leaguer last year.
    Luckily for the fans in Columbus, Trenton, and Boston, the Yanks minor league talent is not quite ready for prime time, else we wouldn’t be having conversations about Pavanp, Karstens, etc.

    Tyrel SF March 26, 2007, 3:42 am
  • Sorry Steve, didn’t mean to echo your arguments, I started typing then was off doing other things before I posted.

    Tyrel SF March 26, 2007, 3:48 am
  • Tyrel, I wouldn’t even bother.
    One of the other assumptions was that I was taking shots at the young Yankee talent, which I also didn’t do. Just because I don’t like the throwing around of the “best” title when there’s plenty of clubs with a LOT of young talent in arms (as stated earlier, Minnesota comes to mind, as well as the LAD,) and I’m not entirely impressed by guys who haven’t yet done anything at the ML level does not mean I’m in denial about the amount of arms they have. Unfortunately, anything said that’s not perfectly rosy (to them) gets a homer tag thrown in your face, even though it’s perfectly acceptable for them to take a deuce all over guys like Lester, Bard, or whomever else they feel like calling out at the moment.
    The prospects for both teams are a ways off, and because of that, I still think the Sox are in a much better position overall having three dominant major-league ready 26 year olds (in Mats, Paps, and Beckett) who can bridge the time gap for a couple seasons until their young arms are ready, a luxury the Yankees don’t quite have (as their only proven ML-level hurler at the moment is Wang.)

    Steve March 26, 2007, 4:36 am
  • Clearly he has much more in common with Torre and Cash than Francona and Theo.
    You know, multiple rings and all.
    Probably also able to appreciate how the Yankees have been nothing but good for the business of baseball. Econ major at Wesleyan, after all. (Great school.)

    YFStuckinBeantownHelp March 26, 2007, 6:48 am
  • andrew and nick…we had the millennium discussion before…there are 2 schools of thought, one that includes 2000 in this century, and another that does not…frankly, it doesn’t matter either way since it doesn’t change the length of time since the last yankee win, but not including 2000 in this century would be like suggesting a baby isn’t born until it’s 1 year old…the 2000’s officially began 1 second after midnight that new years day…

    dc March 26, 2007, 9:00 am
  • steve, no offense, but you do sound like a homer with statements like this:
    “…the Sox are in a much better position overall having three dominant major-league ready 26 year olds (in Mats, Paps, and Beckett)…”
    and this:
    “…a luxury the Yankees don’t quite have (as their only proven ML-level hurler at the moment is Wang.)…”
    …i won’t bother to tell you what’s wrong with these statements, you should be able to figure it out…let’s play the games, and if your comments are prophetic, you can gloat all you want…

    dc March 26, 2007, 9:29 am
  • there are 2 schools of thought
    Actually, dc, there aren’t. 2000 was simply NOT part of this millenium. It’s not a malleable fact.

    SF March 26, 2007, 9:30 am
  • trade proposals flying everywhere!

    Brad March 26, 2007, 9:42 am
  • Belichek is telling Torre and Cashman about teaching Derek Jeter how to do Shawn Merriman’s “Lights Out” Dance.

    dets March 26, 2007, 10:02 am
  • actually sf, we had the discussion and ag straightened it out…2000 is part of this millennium…think of it this way: is the year 1990 considered part of the decade of the 90’s or the 80’s?….kind of clears it up, no?…

    dc March 26, 2007, 10:02 am
  • it’s also why they had the big millennium celebrations at midnight as the calendar turned to the new century, and didn’t wait until 2001 to do that…2000 is part of the 2000’s decade…

    dc March 26, 2007, 10:05 am
  • DC, 1990 is part of the 1980s. It’s part of the fact that there is no year Zero. 1-100 is the first century (100-year period of time), 101-200 is the second century … 2001-2100 is the 21st century.
    “Even I knew (enough) about the Red Sox that Daniel Bard was an overrated starting prospect who only has two above-average pitches and nothing else.”
    What an asinine comment. I guess, then, that we all know enough about each other’s farm systems to choose a random recent draft pick with barely any professional experience and call him overrated based on the fact that he hasn’t developed into Roger Clemens yet. Of all the homer comments allegedly occurring on this thread, that one takes the cake.

    Paul SF March 26, 2007, 10:46 am
  • Celebrating Y2K as the millenium is the definition of Homerism. I blame Prince.

    Tyrel SF March 26, 2007, 11:49 am
  • Alright, that Bard comment was a bit uncalled for, but really, Steve was using him as an example of how Boston could have a better minor league pitching system than the Yanks. And then he goes off and says he’s unimpressed with guys like Clippard, even though he’s done more than all the guys he listed as “potential” for the Sox.
    I guess what I take issue with is the fact that Steve is saying the Yanks actually don’t have pitching depth, when the fact that they have guys like Karstens and Rasner who’ve had the same (or better, even) amount of success as guys like Lester and Gabbard shows so clearly. If Schilling went down and had to start the season on the DL, who would replace him? Kyle Snyder, Julian Tavarez(not to mention, would you really feel comfortable moving Papelbon back to the rotation despite the fact that information JUST came out that his fastball fell to the mid-80s as he pitched later in the game)? Yeah, that’s some pitching depth right there. The fact is that the Yankees have guys who’ve had success in the majors to call upon, plus they have major-league or near-major league ready talent in AAA in guys like Hughes, Ohlendorf and Clippard, not to mention Sanchez because he’s already started his season of injuries.
    Say what you want, but you can’t logically be ‘unimpressed’ by those guys and at the same time be praising your own system for having guys who’ve done even less. The Yankee starters in AAA are not ‘years’ off, it’s months. That’s why they’re in AAA.

    Andrew March 26, 2007, 12:21 pm
  • I think both teams — and all teams in baseball — are ill-equipped to lose the ace of their staff to injury. That’s why they’re the ace, after all. No one has a spare ace hanging around just in case. I dont know that anyone can really win a debate about whose sixth/seventh/eighth starters are the best because each one could be Aaron Small 2005, and each one could be Aaron Small 2006.

    Paul SF March 26, 2007, 12:26 pm
  • I think it’ll be tough for both the Sox and Yanks to break in their younger pitchers, simply because of the need to “win now.” In my mind, in order to develop fully, young pitchers need to be insulated from the pressure to be great from the very beginning. They need the luxury to make mistakes and to learn from them. Generally speaking, most of the better pitchers of the last 20 years were able to break in with teams that were not expected to win, and thus had low-pressure environments to find their comfort level. The exceptions – Wang, Papelbon, ??? – are few and far between.
    If some kid went 6-14 with a 5.61 era, like Maddux did in his first full season, and the team was hoping to win a pennant, he’d probably be booed. That can be pretty devastating for a young guy.
    No real point, I’m just curious to see how the next couple years shakes out for all of these prospects on both teams. I think it’ll be an interesting experiment.

    Tyrel SF March 26, 2007, 12:50 pm
  • SF, read your own post. You said “the oughts.” 2000 is in “the oughts.”
    You did not say “this century” or “this millennium.”

    john March 26, 2007, 2:47 pm
  • The oughts, or the current decade, is 2001-2010.

    Paul SF March 26, 2007, 2:49 pm
  • You had me at “Lester.” You lost me at “The prospects for both teams are a ways off, and because of that, I still think the Sox are in a much better position overall having three dominant major-league ready 26 year olds (in Mats, Paps, and Beckett.).
    Yes, Lester had a great start and is probably the real thing. He still has to recover his health and go through the league a second time to prove he’s the real thing.
    Beckett was not “dominant” in the American League last year. He still has to prove he can be.
    Dice-K has never been dominant in the major leagues. Obviously the Red Sox have bet big that he will be, and maybe they’re right. He still has to prove it.
    “Paps” — Papelbon was great last year, but this whole experience (“We’re moving him to save his arm, oh, cancel that”) is a little odd.
    My point? Sox fans can’t argue that the young Yankee hurlers have to prove themselves (as they do), and then call Beckett and Dick-K “dominant major league ready.”
    BTW, Igawa is doing better today, as he has always said he would as spring training progresses.

    john March 26, 2007, 2:56 pm
  • Dasiuke threw 5 innings today, 103 pitches, no hits, 5 walks, no runs.

    SF March 26, 2007, 3:00 pm
  • The oughts are 2001 – 2010? And who says that other than Sox fans trying to win a point?
    Every google reference I find disagrees with you.
    The “oughts” = the “zeros.” What is more zero than two-zero-zero-zero?
    The 1990s started in 1990 and ended in 1999. The 1980s started in 1980 and ended in 1989. The oughts started in 1900 or 2000 (and so we found when we wrote New York 1900).

    john March 26, 2007, 3:01 pm
  • SF, you will never catch me before the season starts saying Dice-K won’t be good. Barring something REALLY unexpected, I probably won’t even say that if he starts 0 and 5 (which I don’t expect).

    john March 26, 2007, 3:04 pm
  • John, there was no year zero. So the first decade was years 1-10. The new millennium (and I should have used that term instead of the “oughts”,) started in 2001. The confusion was perpetrated by me: I simply should have said “this millennium” in order to avoid this confusion. But I am not certain you are correct, technically speaking.
    Those who think the new millenium began in 2000 are wrong. 2000 was the 2000th year, the last year of the second millenium, since each millenium has 1000 years. 2001 was the first year of the third millennium, and, counterintuitively, the first year of the first decade of the 2000s, the oughts.

    SF March 26, 2007, 3:17 pm
  • Kei Igawa’s line for the day:
    5 IP, 3 hits, 1 run, 1 ER, 2 BB, 4 SO.

    Whatever March 26, 2007, 3:23 pm
  • are we fighting over when a century starts?

    Brad March 26, 2007, 3:23 pm
  • So Matsuzaka and Papelbon go six hitless innings. Craig Hansen comes on: three hits, two runs. Yuck.

    Paul SF March 26, 2007, 3:24 pm
  • No, Brad. The century starts in the first year after year 100 of any given century, year 101 or the like. There’s no argument – this isn’t a semantic discussion, it’s a fact. Same with the start of a new millennium.
    I think John has a legit question over the semantics and the definition of “the oughts”, though.

    SF March 26, 2007, 3:34 pm
  • yeah, SF – I was joking.

    Brad March 26, 2007, 3:39 pm
  • Terrible performance from Hansen. Two outs, two hits, two walks, five runs.

    Paul SF March 26, 2007, 3:39 pm
  • 2225. That would be in the third decade of the third century of the third millenium.
    And Hansen’s line. Blech.

    SF March 26, 2007, 3:49 pm
  • did sf’s ignore the millennium celebrations and wait until 2001?…nice try paul, but you aren’t going to get anyone [except as john says, an sf trying to prove a point] that agrees with you on that, or that 1990 is part of the decade of the 80’s for that matter…it isn’t important though, because it’s a long time since the yankees won anything, and that’s what you’re all trying to drive home…you’re right about that even if you’re wrong about the start of the “oughts”…

    dc March 26, 2007, 9:20 pm
  • dc:
    this is ridiculous. the millennium started in 2001. The funny thing about all the celebrations were that they were actually a year early, though of course there was no stopping them. Microsoft’s “millennium bug” scare didn’t help things either, but that was a technical glitch and a clever name, not any indication of the actual calendar or time transpired on Earth. The popular acceptance of 2000 as the beginning of the third millennium does not make it the actual start of the millennium. It’s pretty simple math. The 2000th year is part of the second thousand years. I am in my fourth decade of life when I turn 31, not 30. When I turn 40, I am completing my fourth decade. Hence, when the calendar hits 2000, the second millenium is in it’s final year. I simply do not get why this is so difficult to understand. Because a bunch of math-challenged beer-drinkers decided to party on Dec. 31st 1999 doesn’t change the millennial math. Argh.

    SF March 26, 2007, 10:20 pm
  • At this point, it has nothing to do with me as an SF trying yo ptove a point and me as an anal person being anal. Hehe. This was a focus of various news stories back during the Y2K craze — that the millennium officially did not turn until 12:00.01 a.m., Jan. 1, 2001. The decade, the century and the millennium all started then, and not a millisecond before.
    Don’t believe me? Believe NASA’s astrophysicist:
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980902d.html
    “You are right that the millennium starts on Jan 1st 2001. There is no year zero, so the first millennium started on January 1, 1 C.E.*, the day after December 31, 1 B.C.E. The first millennium ended 1000 years later, on the night of Dec 31, 1000/morning of Jan 1, 1001, and the second millennium ends 1000 years after that, on Dec 31 2000/Jan 1 2001.”

    Paul SF March 26, 2007, 10:37 pm
  • Um, yeah, that should be “trying to prove a point”…

    Paul SF March 26, 2007, 10:39 pm
  • “…a luxury the Yankees don’t quite have (as their only proven ML-level hurler at the moment is Wang.)…”
    With that, I meant YOUNG ML-level hurler. Still, OK to call me out on that one, because I didn’t type it.
    “My point? Sox fans can’t argue that the young Yankee hurlers have to prove themselves (as they do), and then call Beckett and Dick-K “dominant major league ready.””
    Beckett has been dominant. He was dominant in many games last year, just disasterous in a few which skyrocketed his overall ERA. He posted the 4th best BAA in the AL, and that was in a down year. You’re discounting his track record and abilities in favor of one season where he relied a bit too much on the 4-seamer (with questionable command) and gave up a ton of HRs? I’m inclined to believe he’s ready for a nice turnaround, especially after seeing his offspeed stuff this ST. He’s clearly not directly comparable to any of the guys in the Yankee minor-league system.
    And neither is Matsuzaka, because of his professional experience. The chances of Dice turning into Pedro or Johan are pretty damn slim, so perhaps your context of “dominant” is different than mine, but after seeing the guy pitch a few times, there’s not a doubt in my mind he can be great. I was skeptical at first, but with him, Boston’s front 3 starters have the potential (barring injuries, of course,) to be the best in the league. That’s not a homeristic statement, there’s people all over the league saying the same thing.
    Andrew: Pitching depth INCLUDES the main guys, not just the backups. Even if every NYY hurler was healthy, not many would think the rotation was “better” than Boston’s, but now with Wang shelved, Karstens shelved, and Pettitte’s back balking, what depth is there to be impressed by? Rasner? None of the other guys are real options for callup at the moment. Boston, on the other hand, still has a full-strength rotation and three guys past that who can step in if readily needed (Snyder, Hansack, Gabbard) without rushing any of the kids. That’s depth.

    Steve March 27, 2007, 12:59 am
  • sorry paul and sf, but we may both be right…like i said it ain’t worth arguing over unless you guys want to continue to prove the lame point about the yanks not winning the ws in this century…check it out:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium
    think of it this way sf, when you turned 30, were you in your “30’s” or did you try to convince everyone you were still in your 20’s for another year?…is a baby’s age not recognized until it’s a year old?…is the year 1 AD the year the lord was born, or 1 year later?…like i said before, ag debunked the 2000 argument the last time we had it, and made the point that there’s 2 ways of looking at this, but maybe it sounds better when he says it, or [and i hate to think this] you guys just love to prove me wrong, even if it means ignoring the facts or another point of view…you’re way better than that…

    dc March 27, 2007, 2:25 am
  • DC, The Wiki entry says pretty explicitly that while there’s two schools of thought, only one of those actually has a historical, calendar-related basis. The other is prefaced on, “No one in history mentions a Year 0, but we think it exists anyway!” So NASA and Wikipedia agree — the Yankees have not won a World Series this century ;-)

    Paul SF March 27, 2007, 10:54 am
  • Well, we can just chant…
    “YEAR TWO THOUSAND, YEAR TWO THOUSAND, YEAR TWO THOUSAND!!!”
    What we have here is this, SF and Paul are technically correct, but as is often in our society, reality can dictate truth, so the fact that 99% of the world celebrated in 2000, that actually becomes the new reality, regardless if it’s technically correct or not.

    LocklandSF March 27, 2007, 12:11 pm
  • paul, lockland, you guys are impossible…we’re both “technically” correct…i’m willing to concede that fact if you are, for both theories…otherwise it appears you’re stubbornly hanging on to the past, according to wiki anyway…of course there’s a year 0 [check wiki "viewpoint 2", which claims a belief that year 0 was "too holy to mention"]…it was in the AD calendar, but didn’t have a “name”…ignoring the fact that year existed, and in essence the birth of our lord until 1 year later is a religious choice that i wouldn’t criticize, but it doesn’t invalidate theory 2 in favor of theory 1…that may be what spawned the second theory in the first place, which attempts to recognize the year before 1 AD…both theories are now accepted, mine apparently more so, especially in common practice, except perhaps in “rationalization nation” when it’s convenient to exclude the year 2000 from the 2000’s [bizarre]…i thought the example of the butcher’s scale starting at 1 pound instead of 0 helped prove the point…by the way, when was the last time nasa actually launched something without delaying it 150 times for a “technical” problem?…i’d be hesitant to use them as the experts on anything…this may also come as a surprise to you but water is still wet…;)

    dc March 27, 2007, 3:43 pm
  • is there a ruling from the bobbleheads?

    dc March 27, 2007, 4:02 pm
  • “of course there’s a year 0″
    Wrong. The Gregorian Calendar, initially proposed by Dionysius Exiguus in 524 AD, made no room for the year 0. Some argue this is because the Romans at the time had no concept of the number 0 as a placeholder. Others argue that this is because the reference point in the Gregorian Calendar is not the THE YEAR of Jesus’s birth, but rather THE DAY – thus the year preceeding Jesus’ birth in 1 BC, and the year following his birth is 1 AD.
    http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html

    Tyrel SF March 27, 2007, 5:15 pm
  • …i see that there’s no point in continuing the argument, so this’ll be my last entry on the topic…all i ask is that you go back and read the wikipedia entry i gave you…there are 2 viewpoints on this topic, both well documented…you can call me wrong all you want, but you can’t change the facts…

    Anonymous March 28, 2007, 8:45 am

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: