The Joe.T Memorial Yankees Suck Thread for 2007

[korbel]

Big Choki is up with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, im taking bets right now, i say he strikes out.

Hello Joe. t,

WRONG! How does your brain work. I bet you walk backward when you are looking forward. Yeah...Big Papi almost single-handedly destroyed the Yankers in the 2004 ALCS. So actually, "Big Choki" is the collective nickname of the pinstripe champion chokers...and don't forget it.

Still in SECOND!

Korbel

 

[korbel]

Bawhahahaha!!! just like i predicted big Papi was big choki tonight and the Yankees take the series just like Kevin Hench and I predicted.


Toodles Korbel.

Hello Joe. t,

WHAT A LIAR! Forgot how YOU predicted the Yankers would be in first place after this game. You couldn't predict the sun coming up in the morning. If you said so it wouldn't happen.

Toodles my silly little fibbing clown,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Interesting Managing

Very interesting job of managing by Francona and Torre tonight. Both won big time.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Although ESPN did not show it, I read that the fan who ran out on the field high fived Hinske after he doubled, then ran up to Cano, stole Cano's cap and tried to flee with it. I am assuming he picked Cano because he happened to be in the area, although if he had gotten away with the cap, it could be worth a lot of money as Cano is an amazing player who is only going to get better. I read on espn.com that Red Sox security "roughly" tackled and subdued the fan. I understand the policy of not showing fans running on the field but how about if the camera only shows the violent takedown of the fan? Eastender, as someone who in the past worked in the area of security for a private business, do you agree? Maybe that would serve as a deterrent and protect the players.

The Yankees won 9 out of their last 12 games against the Red Sox and won the season series, 10-8. The Yankees are 6-0 against Cleveland and 4-4 against Detroit. The only possible playoff team they have a losing record against is the Angels, who are tied with Cleveland for the best record in the AL.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The only possible playoff team they have a losing record against is the Angels, who are tied with Cleveland for the best record in the AL.

Actually, Beav, the Angels and Tribe both trail the Sox for the best record in baseball by 2.5 games.

Although it's always better to win than lose, the Sox have a lot to be happy about over this weekend. All three Sox starters pitched well, while only Clemens did for the Yankees. Clemens was much more impressive yesterday than in his previous start against the Sox, when they simply missed a ton of hittable pitches. Last night, he didn't give them much to hit at all.

While they didn't score efficiently, the Sox outscored the Yanks by 7 runs this weekend. Given their insurmountable lead, the Sox had no reason to rush Manny Ramirez back into action. Had winning been necessary, he'd certainly have played.

The one downside to the weekend for the Sox is that Hideki Okajima, who was never as good as he'd pitched the first half of the season, appears to have hit a wall. On the other side, Eric Gagne, who has allowed one run in his last seven appearances, appears to be back on track.

Cano is a fabulous young player. He's considered by scouts to be the third best young second baseman in the AL, behind Pedroia of the Sox and Kinsler of Texas. Second base is, suddenly, a loaded position in the AL, with both Roberts and Polanco established stars.

 

[korbel]

Cano is a fabulous young player. He's considered by scouts to be the third best young second baseman in the AL, behind Pedroia of the Sox and Kinsler of Texas. Second base is, suddenly, a loaded position in the AL, with both Roberts and Polanco established stars.

Hello Rumples,

I thought your post was a very fair and accurate overview. Now if only the pinstripe addicted jester had the honesty and maturity to do the same.

Not holding my breath,

Korbel

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

I thought your post was a very fair and accurate overview. Now if only the pinstripe addicted jester had the honesty and maturity to do the same.

I hope you're referring to a certain lovable fucking moron and not the Beav. I wouldn't consider Beav, who sees the world through pinstriped colored glasses, a jester.

 

[korbel]

Not EB

I hope you're referring to a certain lovable fucking moron and not the Beav. I wouldn't consider Beav, who sees the world through pinstriped colored glasses, a jester.

Hello Rumples,

Definitely not EB. No offense EB.

Regards,

Korbel

 

[EagerBeaver]

Actually, Beav, the Angels and Tribe both trail the Sox for the best record in baseball by 2.5 games.

You are right of course. I meant to say that the Angels and Indians are tied for the best record of the "other team" in the AL which the wild card will have to play, if the wild card team is the Yankees. Which is why if the current seeding holds form, it will be significant for the Yankees as to which of these teams will finish with the better record. I can't imagine that either the Yankees or the Red Sox would want the Angels in the 1st round. But if Cleveland has a good finish and the Yankees can hold off charging Detroit for the wild card, the Red Sox' reward will be the Angels in the 1st round.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

You are right of course. I meant to say that the Angels and Indians are tied for the best record of the "other team" in the AL which the wild card will have to play, if the wild card team is the Yankees. Which is why if the current seeding holds form, it will be significant for the Yankees as to which of these teams will finish with the better record. I can't imagine that either the Yankees or the Red Sox would want the Angels in the 1st round. But if Cleveland has a good finish and the Yankees can hold off charging Detroit for the wild card, the Red Sox' reward will be the Angels in the 1st round.

It will be interesting to see which format the Sox choose. My sense is that they'll make the opponent use four starters and choose the more compressed schedule. Both the Angels and Indians have two stud starters, to the Sox one, to the Yanks none.

 

[eastender]

Tough Call

I read on espn.com that Red Sox security "roughly" tackled and subdued the fan. I understand the policy of not showing fans running on the field but how about if the camera only shows the violent takedown of the fan? Eastender, as someone who in the past worked in the area of security for a private business, do you agree? Maybe that would serve as a deterrent and protect the players.

EB

After a few beers some people will see that as a fair trade for their few seconds of fame. There will always be viewers who will try to outdo the previous episode so the risk of perpetuating the problem is always there.

A fan running onto the field is not "part of the game" so I would not see such an incident as being newsworthy. Granted a squirrel or a cat on the field is not part of the game either but there is no animal demographic watching that thinks what they just saw is cool. The risk of imitators is always present especially when weighed against the lack of equal treatment that the media will give the story should the fan be fined.

Showing only the violent take down. Lawyers would have a field day especially if the rest of the tape was erased. You would not have the counterpoint of the gestures or actions that resulted in the take down.

 

[eastender]

Interesting Stat

Presently the 30 MLB teams are grouped between .420 (Devil Rays) and .596 (Red Sox) when looking at their W / L percentage. If the season ends with no team at or over .600 or below .400 then it be only the second season in the history of MLB that the teams have all finished between .400 and .600. The only other season was 2000 when the teams finished between .401 and .599.

Some see this as a sign of parity while others, myself included see this as a sign of the declining level of overall talent.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Presently the 30 MLB teams are grouped between .420 (Devil Rays) and .596 (Red Sox) when looking at their W / L percentage. If the season ends with no team at or over .600 or below .400 then it be only the second season in the history of MLB that the teams have all finished between .400 and .600. The only other season was 2000 when the teams finished between .401 and .599.

Some see this as a sign of parity while others, myself included see this as a sign of the declining level of overall talent.

I fail to see the link between the gap between the top and bottom teams’ won-lost records and your suggestion of declining performance.

There is considerable evidence to the contrary, to wit:

1. Athletes across the athletic spectrum are bigger, stronger, and better trained than at any time in human history. Where performance is measurable, records continue to be broken. Advances in sports medicine and attention to athletes’ nutrition contribute to the overall increase in athletic wellness, not only in baseball, but in other sports as well.

2. Ballplayers stay in shape year round and report to spring training in good condition, whereas in the past they would report fat and out of shape, after a winter of drinking beer and working other jobs, necessitated by the lower salaries of the pre-McNally-Messersmith era. Ballplayers annually spend millions of dollars on in-home training facilities and personal trainers.

3. Modern day teams employ far more skills coaches than did teams in prior years, as well as strength and conditioning coaches. Modern day clubhouses are outfitted with state-of-the art workout facilities where none of these existed in the past. Where informer times, players played cards and drank beer prior to games, today they spend time in the training facility in order to keep in better shape.

4. Modern day medicine returns players to action from injury much more quickly than in the past. Many injuries that would have ended careers 50 years ago are now surgically repaired with now-routine procedures.

John Kruk uttered the immortal line, “I ain’t no athlete lady, I’m a ballplayer.” Kruk was the last of a dying breed. Today’s ballplayers are athletes. They have to be to compete in the modern era.

By the way, the combined records of all MLB teams in 2007 is .500. In 1930, it was .500, in 1962, it was .500. I’d even wager with Joe.T that in 2008, it will be .500

You say, by the way, “while others, myself included see this as a sign of the declining level of overall talent.” Can you please direct me to any of these "others" who take your silly, evidence-challenged point of view?

 

[eastender]

The Numbers

I fail to see the link between the gap between the top and bottom teams’ won-lost records and your suggestion of declining performance.

There is considerable evidence to the contrary, to wit:

1. Athletes across the athletic spectrum are bigger, stronger, and better trained than at any time in human history. Where performance is measurable, records continue to be broken. Advances in sports medicine and attention to athletes’ nutrition contribute to the overall increase in athletic wellness, not only in baseball, but in other sports as well.

2. Ballplayers stay in shape year round and report to spring training in good condition, whereas in the past they would report fat and out of shape, after a winter of drinking beer and working other jobs, necessitated by the lower salaries of the pre-McNally-Messersmith era. Ballplayers annually spend millions of dollars on in-home training facilities and personal trainers.

3. Modern day teams employ far more skills coaches than did teams in prior years, as well as strength and conditioning coaches. Modern day clubhouses are outfitted with state-of-the art workout facilities where none of these existed in the past. Where informer times, players played cards and drank beer prior to games, today they spend time in the training facility in order to keep in better shape.

4. Modern day medicine returns players to action from injury much more quickly than in the past. Many injuries that would have ended careers 50 years ago are now surgically repaired with now-routine procedures.

John Kruk uttered the immortal line, “I ain’t no athlete lady, I’m a ballplayer.” Kruk was the last of a dying breed. Today’s ballplayers are athletes. They have to be to compete in the modern era.

By the way, the combined records of all MLB teams in 2007 is .500. In 1930, it was .500, in 1962, it was .500. I’d even wager with Joe.T that in 2008, it will be .500

You say, by the way, “while others, myself included see this as a sign of the declining level of overall talent.” Can you please direct me to any of these "others" who take your silly, evidence-challenged point of view?

Rumples

I clearly posted that there is a decline in overall talent NOT as you suggest declining performance. If you cannot appreciate the distinction that is your loss.

Today you have 30 MLB teams = 1200 players on the 40 man roster.In 1960 you had 16 MLB teams = 640 players on the 40 man roster. 560 additional roster slots are now considered major league quality that in 1960 were minor league quality slots.

Your previous post in this thread about "stud" starting pitchers on the play-off bound AL teams is interesting since it supports my position about the lack of overall talent. Effectively you claim that amongst four teams you have a total of five "stud" pitchers. You do not list or define "stud" pitchers but you qualify the number as being very small - five. Pending your definition and list
I am reserving comment BUT am pretty sure that in 1960 the top four AL teams had more than a total of five combined "stud" starting pitchers.

Today MLB is concerned and creating programs to get inner city black American athletes into baseball. Numerous articles to this effect - do a Google.Marquis Grissom in the Atlanta area has started a program on his own.
In 1960 the issue was creating MLB roster spots and playing time for such talent.

As for your John Kruk comment - look at Jason Giambi, Dimitri Young, Barry Bonds, David Ortiz, to name four that are one dimensional ballplayers - hitters not athletes.

 

[eastender]

Who?

It will be interesting to see which format the Sox choose. My sense is that they'll make the opponent use four starters and choose the more compressed schedule. Both the Angels and Indians have two stud starters, to the Sox one, to the Yanks none.

Kindly define "stud starters" and list the five.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Today you have 30 MLB teams = 1200 players on the 40 man roster.In 1960 you had 16 MLB teams = 640 players on the 40 man roster. 560 additional roster slots are now considered major league quality that in 1960 were minor league quality slots.

First of all, MLB rosters are 25 man, not 40. While the player population has increased by 87%, the US population has also increased, though only by 68%. However, when you consider that the MLB population is now an international population, the portion of the US-born population playing major league baseball has declined considerably.

Where there are now over 100 players in baseball from the Dominican Republic, in 1959 there was Felipe Alou. Between 1960 and 1969, 23 more Dominicans made their debuts. Between 1990 and 1999, 135 Dominicans entered the major leagues. Between 2000 and 2007, another 140 made their debuts in the Show.

In 1960, there was one Venezuelan, Luis Aparicio. In 2007, 22 Venezuelans have appeared in major league games. No Japanese players appeared in 1960, eight in 2007. There are even more Cuban born players today than in 1960. Taiwan, zero in 1960, 4 in 2007. Korea, zero in 1960, 4 in 2007.

As far as this ludicrious statement, "I clearly posted that there is a decline in overall talent NOT as you suggest declining performance. If you cannot appreciate the distinction that is your loss," where does the performance come from if not the talent? God, sometimes you make even Joe.T seem articulate; the key difference here is that he at least knows he's a clown.

 

[eastender]

First of all, MLB rosters are 25 man, not 40. While the player population has increased by 87%, the US population has also increased, though only by 68%. However, when you consider that the MLB population is now an international population, the portion of the US-born population playing major league baseball has declined considerably.
QUOTE]

Each MLB team has a 40 man roster plus 60 day DL players. From the 40 man roster an active everyday roster of 25 is selected until September 1, at which time the active everyday roster may be expanded to 40. Given the frequency of DL moves and resulting call-ups it is reasonable to look at talent
from the standpoint of a 40 man roster.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Each MLB team has a 40 man roster plus 60 day DL players. From the 40 man roster an active everyday roster of 25 is selected until September 1, at which time the active everyday roster may be expanded to 40. Given the frequency of DL moves and resulting call-ups it is reasonable to look at talent
from the standpoint of a 40 man roster.

Despite the fact that what you suggest is ludicrous and is yet another attempt to obfuscate the facts, I'll accept the 40 man notion since it gives you one further opportunity to stick your foot in your mouth.

As most of players 26-40 on the 40 man rosters are either rookies with no major league experience or fringe players with very little, how can you make, then, your silly statement that talent is declining?

 

[eastender]

Performance vs Talent

As far as this ludicrious statement, "I clearly posted that there is a decline in overall talent NOT as you suggest declining performance. If you cannot appreciate the distinction that is your loss," where does the performance come from if not the talent?
[/ QUOTE]

Look at the MLB stats for the WWII era (1942 -45) and you will see my point. Inferior talent produced major league numbers. The true MLB talent that did not go into the army - players like Stan Musial did not produce unbelievable numbers.

You had 20 game winners, .300+ hitters,, etc. You had performance but the accepted opinion is that the overall talent was not there.

Look at MLB today - two teams have horrific starting pitching.Texas,all starters have an ERA over 5.00 and Washington with a makeshift starters - 13 different starters, not one over 6 wins,are playing .467 and .447 ball.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Look at the MLB stats for the WWII era (1942 -45) and you will see my point. Inferior talent produced major league numbers. The true MLB talent that did not go into the army - players like Stan Musial did not produce unbelievable numbers.

You had 20 game winners, .300+ hitters,, etc. You had performance but the accepted opinion is that the overall talent was not there.

Look at MLB today - two teams have horrific starting pitching.Texas,all starters have an ERA over 5.00 and Washington with a makeshift starters - 13 different starters, not one over 6 wins,are playing .467 and .447 ball.

None of this makes your point. Inferior talent produced major league numbers. Of course, weaker pitching and weaker hitting balanced itself out.

20 game winners. So what. You'd have lots of 20 game winners today if pitchers started 40 games and threw 300 innings. The game has changed, the way it's played has changed, the way it's approached by management has changed.

You think the Washington Senators, St. Louis Browns, and Boston Braves didn't have horrendous pitching decade after decade? Again, the game has changed. Better field surfaces, bigger gloves, better positioning, and better fielders overall have reduced batting averages. Smaller ballparks, harder pitching, maple bats, lighter bats, bigger stronger hitters have increased power production.

Has overall talent increased or decreased? All the available evidence suggests that the ballplayers of today are the best that have ever graced the game. You've failed to provide a lick of evidence to the contrary.