SB Nation User Blog: LateInningRelief

Would the Babe have juiced?

LateInningRelief — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:42:40 -0000

Here we go again...A-Rod's admission has that carousel of moralizing columnists and talking heads moving again. Sigh.

This is one sticky wicket, and honestly, at this point, Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod seem victims of MLB's catastrophically flawed approach to steroids, with Clemens and Bonds also victims of their own hubris to the extent that they are likely going to jail for perjury. This the nub of the issue: An illegal, performance-enhancing substance was not banned in baseball until 2004. If we're to believe Canseco--and at this point, why shouldn't we?--steroids were rampant in clubhouses for well over a decade before that.

It's hard to believe that Selig et al did not make a conscious decision to keep the issue at an arm's length for as long as possible. Perhaps they reasoned that the data was not clear, that the facts were not all in, that previous generations had been hopped up on speed to get through 162 games. As likely, I think they feared the repecursions of placing the issue on center stage. McGuire and Sosa's battle for the home run record brought the game back to life. And that little bottle of andro in McGuire's locker? Well, you'd have to ask him about that.

Am I alone in thinking that the tax dollars we're spending to put Bonds in jail, send IRS agent Jeff Nowitzky scouring the seedy world of Houston bodybuilders and hold Congressional hearings could be better spent elsewhere? Certainly, something that can give you an extra ten feet of lift on your fly ball, or a few extra MPH on your fastball may not be equivalent to Mantle popping greenies to get up for the game. But are the steroid users of this era of clearly lesser moral character than previous generations?

Poll

Would Babe Ruth have taken steroids?

Assuredly yes

130 votes

Maybe

79 votes

No way

48 votes

Doesn't matter--it's not equivalent

67 votes

324 votes | Poll has closed

Don't promote Kennedy...

LateInningRelief — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:25:44 -0000

...yet.

I was delighted to see that IPK had nearly thrown a no-hitter in Scranton. Glad to see that he's back on our radar and making a case for a promotion to the Bronx. I'd love to see a replay of last year, when he comes up in August and makes a big impression.

But please, brass, be patient. Give him at least 2 more starts in Scranton. Let Ponson and Rasner soak up the innings for a bit longer. Let IPK build up a good head of steam. He needs to string some consecutive strong outings together before he gets the call up.

My two cents.

Enough Already

LateInningRelief — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:10:14 -0000

Consider me the lone voice of dissent in saying that while Wells himself is not the right move, throwing the young guns into the mix to see if one of them can handle the challenge isn't either. Let's see IPK string another couple victories together in Scranton. White and Marquez aren't ready yet either; otherwise, nobody in their right mind would have put Igawa on the mound yesterday. Rasner did well last go-round, and hopefully he can fill the #4 slot for a bit. McCutch and the rest: Let's discuss in July.

Here's the point:

The idea of bringing in a veteran, in my view, is about letting the young guns develop at their own pace. This is not Tampa, and we're not the Rays. I saw the long list RAB put up the other day, laying out all the in-house talent they'd prefer to give a shot over Wells. While I'd probably pick AAA talent over tub-o-goo, let's get real about how one a.) develops young talent and b.) does it in NYC.

The Yankee organization needs to stop over-compensating for years of larding the roster with overage stars by suddenly putting all of the onus on the young guns.

Okay, the ship has partially sailed. That's a given. And hopefully, IPK can get back into the swing, Rasner can hold down the fort and Hughes can get his mojo back. But organizationally, this focus on throwing kid after kid into the breach is sort of like trench warfare. Yeah, sooner or later, somebody's going to get through, but the attrition rate is too high.

Let's be smart about it. And let's give these kids a lot bigger net. Because it's all a game of expectations. Last year, IPK and Hughes had far less, and they won the expectations game. This year? Not so much.

Rate the organization

LateInningRelief — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:59:58 -0000

Ed got me thinking about why I'm a bit disengaged this year. The process of developing young talent is always a bit of a trial, no matter how strong a fan one may be.

But that, I think, is really only part of the issue. I can live with a young group of players. However, we're also breaking in a new pair of owners and a new manager. The whole organization, in my view, is up in the air a bit. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the Yanks have the third best organization just in the AL East.

Curious what everybody else thinks...

Poll

Where does the Yankee organization (ownership, front office, farm system, scouting, coaching and players) rank in the AL?

1st

5 votes

2nd

3 votes

3rd

4 votes

4th

4 votes

5th

1 votes

Not in top 5

8 votes

25 votes | Poll has closed

Cashman's future

LateInningRelief — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:00:20 -0000

is now all about depth. Even if Joba's move to the rotation gives us the semblance of a starting 5, Phil and IPK are definitely looking more like reclamation projects in 2008. Meaning: Cashman's youth movement needs to produce some unlikely heroes. Otherwise, the big non-deal last winter will probably get him canned.

Jscape, is there anybody in the pipeline beyond Rasner that could be helpful? With Horne on the DL, does White look like the best candidate to come up next?

Time for Sabathia?

LateInningRelief — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:49:17 -0000

Now that criticism of the front office is no longer tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, can we finally have a real discussion on our reliance on the Trinity?

There's been a lot of hazy thoughts on what package the Yankees ultimately left on the table for Santana, but I believe Pfisty mentioned that the last demand the Twins made was IPK + Horne or Marquez + Another Prospect. As I recall (and my memory is not entirely clear on this, so correct me if I'm wrong), Hank was for the deal, Hal and Cash were against it, largely because of the need to then swing a huge contract. Bottom line: If Boston wasn't a real stalking horse, the Hal and Cash did not want to give up both solid prospects AND a gargantuan contract.

I understand that 4 weeks do not in any way indicate whether the long-term decision to forego Santana was right or wrong. But if we're evaluating stretching out Ohlendorf and hailing the 2nd coming of Rasner, things, uh, ain't going so well.

Was this avoidable? I sure think so. I'm the last person anybody would want evaluating prospects, but I am enough of a student of history to think the odds were long that two legitimate rookies (IPK and Joba) and the youngest starter in MLB (Hughes) could power this team to any real standing this year. I believe I am also in the minority in thinking that Joba is going to have a rockier transition to the rotation than most of us think. And I remain dubious that all three are going to be real aces period.

Yeah, yeah, you say. Water under the dam. Case closed. Santana's a Met. Hold the line, and they'll turn it around. Don't panic.

Well, not so fast. Because there's a big fella in Cleveland whose likely going to be in another uniform by the trading deadline. And I think it should be pinstripes.

Thoughts?

When is it time

LateInningRelief — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:16:34 -0000

to let Hughes and/or IPK work out their issues in the minors?

I realize Joel Sherman is not a big draw around these parts, but his article this morning on demoting Hughes--

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04302008/sports/yankees/phils_like_time_for_a_demotion_108728.htm

--actually has a pretty informative quote from Hughes:

"It's not my decision. The mound is just as far away in Triple-A as it is here. Maybe I wouldn't be hit as hard. I have some things to work out. Where that is is not my call."

Maybe Hughes is ready to get off the big stage for a few weeks so he can get his confidence back?

FAR: Vol 1

LateInningRelief — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:28:14 -0000

With apologies to the good folks at Fire Joe Morgan, I would like to introduce the inaugural issue of Fire Andy Roth. Now that blogs have come of age, it seems time for...that's right: analysis of our blog analysts. Just as Richard Sandomir in the Times takes a long hard look at sports media, just as FJM skewers flabby thinking from sportswriters and broadcasters, FAR will scrutinize all public blog analysis.

First, a basic ground rule. Anybody can create a FAR post, but it should never be used as a means for settling scores, but rather as a tool for genuine posting analysis. This means that the concept of 'public blog analysis' is a key one; use good judgment and be fair about it.

So, without further adieu, for our first edition, I will take a quick look at comments from, um, andyroth, in reply to the Wang, Chamberlain, Rivera fanpost of yesterday afternoon. Please reference the original post.

EASY TO TALK CRAP NOW

especially when I made the call about not starting Wang in games 1 and 5 last year BEFORE the series started. Where the F was your ass and rest of the people here about Torre’s decision….

Well, actually, at the time Mr. Roth made the post, I believe most of us we were trying not to engage him in the hopes that he'd go away. He had made a few previous posts, such as one where he wanted to gauge interest in a regular newsletter on how stupid major league managers were. That was a sign to most of us that we should give him a wide berth.

As to the merits of Mr. Roth's Wang claim, yes, indeed, he did say that. And his prognosticating paid off in that instance, emboldening him to become louder and more public. In fact, it seems Mr. Roth feels he has secured his place in the blog-world based on the fact that he looked into a crystal ball and saw that Wang was going to get shelled in Games 1 and 5. So let's avoid the 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day' argument and give Mr. Roth credit for making a predication that virtually nobody else made. The question is whether this makes him an analyst that should be followed or, in fact, Chauncey Gardiner (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_there). Let's see what else he's had to say.

I’ve been negative about Mussina and he’s been better than I thought

Uh oh. Alarm bells. Mr. Roth's now brought his prediction rate down to .500. But let's see if he can get that up again.

and have been very negative about Hughes and Kennedy and they’ve been bad.

Well, okay, this is actually two strikes against Mr. Roth. First, he admits that he's been 'very negative' about IPK and Hughes, while they have been merely 'bad.' Erego, one must conclude, that his negativity is out of proportion to their badness--one might think that Mr. Roth is, well, a bit of a crank.

Second, we then really need to address Mr. Roth's analytical skills. Describing Hughes and Kennedy as 'bad' actually could be Mr. Roth's undoing. Most knowledgeable baseball analysts have used words like 'inconsistent', 'growing pains' or 'uneven'. As they mix high quality innings with bad ones, IPK and Hughes should stabilize their outings in the next few months, which would surely wipeout all of the goodwill Mr. Roth has built up with his Wang prediction last fall. Let's see how this one goes.

And Cashman is Cashman. Just from the little I’ve seen of Kobayashi, he’s clearly better than Hawkins and Cashman wasn’t even in on this guy and he’s $3.1M per season.

Curious what Mr. Roth means by 'the little I've seen of Kobayashi.' Did Kobayashi strike out a batter while Mr. Roth was surfing through the channels? Need some clarity here.

And I also said before the season I would’ve signed Mahay and Affeldt. Let’s see how that turns outs.

Mr. Roth has made numerous trades/signings that seemed to have gone extraordinarily well for his fantasy baseball team. Next up: Whitey Ford.

As far as Wang, if he can continue throwing the slider as well as he did today he would establish himself as a true No. 1.

Uh oh. Now he's undercut the entire argument that he built his reputation on, which was that Wang just wasn't a #1.

As far as Chamberlain, the stupid Yankee organization and the rest of the scouts didn’t even realize that his talent was clearly above Hughes.

Okay, this one could be deal-closer for Mr. Roth. If he can produce documentation that he saw Chamberlain's greater potential anytime prior to last July, then he is an analyst worth listening to. Would also be curious if he picked which third of all first round draft picks will become MLB contributors and which will wash out in the minors.

I SEE YOU ROOT FOR THE KNICKS

which makes you dumber than Jim Dolan.

Now this is just lazy. Had Mr. Roth gone a step further, he would have also noticed that I root for the Cleveland Browns, which haven't won a championship since the Jim Brown era and haven't been competitive (until recently???) since the Bernie Kosar era. That's a whole lot dumber than rooting for the Knicks. Another demerit for Mr. Roth.

Wang, Chamberlain, Rivera

LateInningRelief — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:07:20 -0000

Wang: C+. I know this guy is now 5-0 on the season, he was in the running for the Cy Young and he has more wins over the last 2 seasons than anybody, but I still wouldn't have started him in Game 1 last year. Anyway, I hear he had decent command of his sinker today--I didn't actually see the game--but does he stack up against Santana? Only clowns in Pinstripes would think so. Chamberlain: B-. Overrated. Rivera: F. This guy is hardly Hall of Fame material. I would trade him for Lincecum or Santana in a heartbeat.

Joba in the pen...

LateInningRelief — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:13:37 -0000

is a matter of VORP.

To commemorate my first diary posting, last August, on the idea of keeping Joba in the bullpen, I'd like to present an argument for padlocking the bullpen door so he cannot escape, at least through the rest of the season. (Consider this, as well, an invitation for Haggs and Anaconda to finetune their arguments pro/con.)

Basically, my view on keeping Joba there comes down to two things:

1.) Are the Yankees competitive at the All-Star break, with a chance to advance in the playoffs. If they're clearly out of the playoff picture, by all means send Joba to Tampa to convert to a starter. If they're in the running, then I rest my decision on issue #2:

2.) How well IPK is pitching. This is the VORP argument. In my view, Joba's value as a starter has to be evaluated against the value of the starter he'd replace, most likely IPK. The bottom line is whether Joba's innings as a starter are of significantly more value than IPK's innings.

If IPK settles down and pitches like he did last night (and Moose and Hughes are reliable), the only issue is managing IPK and Hughes' innings. I'd rather cap IPK and Hughes' innings/game and give the young relievers (Ohlendorf, Bruney et al) add'l innings to try out to replace Joba in 2009.

My two cents.

Poll

Keep Chamberlain in the bullpen...

...if the Yankees want to win this year.

5 votes

...as a future replacement for Mo.

3 votes

...if the other starters are reliable at the break.

10 votes

...if the Yankees are fools--c'mon, convert him to a starter ASAP.

11 votes

29 votes | Poll has closed