Yanks-Mets II Post-Mortem: Exit Sandmen

What we learned from today’s action:
-Miguel Cairo should probably hit leadoff.
-Pedro: Brilliant as ever. But the Yanks still have his number.
-Moose: Brilliant as ever. Yanks didn’t do him any favors either.
-Billy Wagner melts like Velveeta.
-Rumors of Mariano’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Elswhere:
-Probably best to slide around Michael Barrett.
-Barry hits 714. But how many rings does he have?

17 comments… add one
  • One question, though:
    Willie Randolph: Major League Manager?

    SF May 20, 2006, 8:49 pm
  • Willie was bad today…but both SF fans and YF fans alike can point to at least a handful of decisions over the past couple of weeks by their own teams’ managers that made them want to go out and buy St. Louis jersies.
    Also, I hadn’t seen the Barret v. AJ battle until a few minutes ago. Barret’s the new AJ Pierzinski!

    walein May 20, 2006, 10:28 pm
  • Is that St. Louis, as in Tony LaRussa, who hasn’t managed his way into a Series victory since joining the Cards?

    PaulSF May 20, 2006, 10:56 pm
  • I was gonna create a separate post about Bonds, but you mentioned him, YF, so I’ll piggyback here.
    Baseball Tonight is just drooling all over themselves paying homage to Bonds. I allow, even though I hate the man and consider every home run he’s hit since 1998 to be tainted, that we should do retrospectives, compare him to Ruth and marvel over the extreme difficulty of hitting that many home runs over a career.
    But let’s have some journalistic integrity. How about even a mention that many might not consider this to be a real achievement, or that a good portion of the home runs might be under investigation right now, or even the simple question: “Would Bonds, a great hitter, have been able to hit this many home runs without using steroids?” Hey, maybe he hasn’t used them at all. No one’s ever proved it. But shouldn’t that all be part of the discussion?
    To simply grovel all over this home run as if it’s completely unquestioned or untainted is to ignore a huge aspect of this story and really make yourself seem out of touch with current issues in baseball.
    (And really, looking at their video montage showing Bonds’ 1st, 100th, 200th, 300th, etc., HRs, it’s pretty clear. The physical change between Bonds’ 400th (in 1998) and 500th is remarkable.)

    PaulSF May 20, 2006, 11:04 pm
  • I’m not sure how you justify the still have his number comment. 4H, 8K, in 7, I think? Not sure how that qualifies as “having his number”. If “being shut out over 7 innings” is equivalent to “having somebody’s number”, then yes. And the having his number crap was BS in the first place. My guess is that over the years, Pedro has done a lot better overall against the Yankees than they’ve done against him. And 2004? Who’s your Daddy? ended up being more Who’s your Big Papi? So that’s a ridiculous argument made even more ridiculous with Pedro’s excellent but wasted start today.
    And the demise of Mariano isn’t true, absolutely. The “even shakier than the beginning of last season” rumors are true. Can he turn it around and get himself back to a sub-2.00 era with 40 saves, sure? Has he actually been that guy so far? No.

    Quo May 20, 2006, 11:54 pm
  • Quo: The Yankees have had considerable success in games Pedro has started over the years, despite Pedro’s excellence. Hence Pedro’s “The Yankees are my daddies” comment. That’s just reality, and it’s not a knock on Pedro, as far as I’m concernced; he’s the best pitcher I’ve ever seen, period.
    Paul: I couldn’t agree more. I have something planned on Barry and his legacy, but for the moment I point to this:
    http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28506

    YF May 21, 2006, 12:12 am
  • Pedro: Brilliant as ever. But the Yanks still have his number.
    He might have bad luck/bullpen behind him but Yankees had NOTHING on him yesterday. If it wasn’t for Wagner’s total meltdown and Randolph’s coma, Petey would have a W

    Cape Codder May 21, 2006, 9:32 am
  • Yeah, Quo, that’s the point. Pedro dominates. Yanks win anyway. They’ve “got his number.” Even he’s acknowledged this. Time for you to do the same.

    YF May 21, 2006, 9:42 am
  • Pedro dominates. Yanks win anyway. They’ve “got his number.” Even he’s acknowledged this. Time for you to do the same
    That’s an idiotic argument, even for you, YF. The Yankees win a game after Pedro leaves with a 4-0 lead, the opponent blowing the game in the ninth inning and somehow they “have his number”? There is no logic to this at all. None. Let me see if I can get this straight. This is your logic:
    Batter A has Pitcher A’s number. Pitcher A strikes out Batter A three straight times. Pitcher A is removed from game. Pitcher B enters the game and faces Batter A, who hits a home run off Pitcher B. Batter A therefore has Pitcher A’s number. That’s what you are saying based on yesterday’s game. If I were your logic teacher, you’d get an F, in a big, fat, red marker.

    SF May 21, 2006, 10:00 am
  • Is this serious? I think my logic scores are fine. But SF and Quo get a ginormous F minus in history. When Pedro pitches, the Yanks often win, depite his best efforts. That was my point, clearly. And that is a historical fact. That is why Pedro–PEDRO HIMSELF!–called the Yankees his “daddies.” Why is this even remotely controversial?

    YF May 21, 2006, 11:11 am
  • Before yesterday’s game, Pedro held a career line of 11-10, 3.13 ERA in 30 games against the Yankees (couldn’t find more stats). ERA of ~3 vs. a team that has averaged around 6 runs per game for the last decade – doesn’t sound like he’s been owned.
    Also, EVERYONE knows what Pedro said about the Yanks, but he also said Nelson de la Rosa was the team’s good luck charm in 2004. It’s obvious he’s been known to embellish – the real good luck came from the Jack.

    Sean May 21, 2006, 11:39 am
  • Exactly. The best pitcher of our era is 11-10 with a 3 plus era against the Yanks, both stats well below his standard. But the point, AGAIN, is that by all rights he should have a larger number of wins against the Yanks, But he’s been snake-bitten a number of times by his own team, and in other cases came out on the wrong end of pitchers’ duels. AGAIN: NO KNOCK ON PEDRO. Jeez.

    YF May 21, 2006, 11:55 am
  • I am not arguing whether or not the Yankees beat Pedro a bunch of times. But saying that yesterday’s game shows they “have his number” is frankly moronic. Pedro had nothing to do with the result yesterday, and the Yankees didn’t beat Pedro – there was nothing about yesterday’s game that shows the Yankees have his number, in any fashion. Illustrating the veracity of your statement, (which may have some accuracy in the grand scheme of things) via yesterday’s game is just completely stupid. I can’t put it any more bluntly.

    SF May 21, 2006, 12:42 pm
  • A winning record and a below-league-average ERA against the second-best offense in the league (Sox had the No. 1 during the years Pedro was here) is in no way the definition of being owned or that team having your number.
    Did the Sox’ bullpen blow a lot of leads for Pedro? Yes, against the Yankees and against other good teams in the AL. Did it happen more often against the Yankees? Perhaps, but when you play a team 19 times, that’s going to happen. Did Pedro’s managers consistently leave him in too long, when it was apparent he was tiring? Absolutely. Pedro is a 100-pitch/7-inning pitcher, but he consistently was allowed to go beyond this, causing great performances to become merely good ones, close wins to become close losses.
    All that to say that the Yankees do not “have Pedro’s number.” They have fared about as well as every other team in the AL against him, given the Yankees’ superiority over most other AL teams and the number of times the Sox and Yanks play each other. And by “about as well,” I mean very poorly.
    Sure, you can extrapolate from some starts (Game 7 in 03, the game that incited the “who’s-your-daddy” comment) that the Yanks have Pedro’s number. But it’d be hard to continue to say that based on a few other starts — the 17-K game, crushing Clemens in the playoffs, shutting them down during The 04 Comeback.
    Next thing we know, Beckett has one bad start aganst New York, or the bullpen blows a lead for him at Yankee Stadium, and you’ll be saying the Yanks have his number, as well.

    PaulSF May 21, 2006, 2:18 pm
  • Do Sox fans live in some parallel universe where up is down and down is up? From the looks of these comments, the answer is a resounding yes. Incredible. The whole “Yankees are my daddies” thing never happened. Never. Actually, I hear that whole Bucky thing is also a myth. And the Buckner play–he actually fielded that thing cleanly. The video is confusing. The new Total Baseball has the Sox as 1986 WS champs. And Ted William hit .506. Totally.

    YF May 21, 2006, 4:06 pm
  • You are missing my point. Which is: using yesterday’s game as some sort of indication that the Yankees own Pedro is just plain stupid.

    SF May 21, 2006, 9:28 pm
  • I’m not sure where you’re seeing inconsistency. I’ll grant you that Pedro has not been lights-out against the Yankees. But that they have his number? And as SF says, using the Mets-Yanks game this weekend as a frickin example? And actually, 11-10 with a low 3 ERA? How is my comment that he’s had “more success against the Yankees than they’ve had against him” not valid?
    Further, you miss the point with your last comment. I don’t think anyone said that the stats are incorrect. Just that they don’t really qualify as “having his number”. Have they had a bit more success against him than a lot of other teams? Yes. Have you shown your ignorance in continuing this line of thinking? Absolutely. All that crap about up and down parallel universe is trying to make this into something it is not. I’m trying to think of a point where someone made any other comment that would justify you making that ridiculous (I assume) joke. This was a reasonable debate about Pedro and his success or lack thereof against the Yankees, until you let your emotions take over. And the Yankees can never claim things as being anything better than a wash based on the stats, and certainly can’t claim it being anything better based on this weekend.

    Quo May 22, 2006, 1:50 am

Leave a Comment

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