Bleacher Report - Articles by patrick bohn

Jimmy Rollins' Prediction Proves How Stupid Sportswriters Are

patrick bohn — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:39:19 -0500

So Jimmy Rollins proved once again that when it comes to playoffs and predictions, he's an idiot. Picking the Phillies to win in five games was clearly an act of a delusional man. Thank God the mighty Yankees proved him wrong.

Wait. Hang on. Scratch that.

Rollins shouldn't be criticized for making a prediction. He should be applauded for pointing out (indirectly and probably unintentionally) the laziness of sportswriters.

Asking a player for their prediction in a series is the most cliched, pointless thing a sportswriter can do. It baffles me that people continue to ask, and more amazingly, get upset at the results.

Exactly what is a writer hoping for when asking a player for a prediction? Do they honestly think some ground-breaking answer is going to come out? Some piece of prose, so eloquently worded we'll be showing video clips of it for years to come?

Realistically, there are two things that will occur when a player is asked this question:

1) They will say they think their team will win

Of course, they won't do this without first admitting their opponent is a great team/player. After all, we wouldn't want to offend anyone here. But once the required pleasantries are out of the way, it's all their team, all the time.

Again, why would this be suprising to people. What player doesn't have the confidence in themselves and their teammates that they think they'll lose? Even if they did, who in their right mind would say it? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.

Of course, some people don't want to ruffle any feathers, so you get a variation of this response:

2) "I think we're two evenly-matched teams, and it's hard to know how the game(s) will play out, and they've got a lot of great players in that locker room, so I really can't say what will happen"

Well, great. Thanks for that insight.

You know when I'll applaud a player for making a prediction? When I hear this:

"Well, we're a great team, but our rotation isn't lined up so great, and they have home field and we've got some guys battling injuries and we don't have their depth. I like the other guys in six."

At least that quote will have some meaning to it.

At least then you've got a story with something interesting to say.

At least then I know the guy is being honest, and not just worried about how he'll look in the press.

But we all know that will never happen. We all know every sportswriter wants to get the next Joe Namath quote. The next Mark Messier guarantee. So, they keep asking and we keep hearing the same bland responses. Think "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," minus the fury part.

Now I don't blame athletes for making these predictions. If a sportswriter sticks a mic in your face and asks you the question, what choice do you have but to give an actual answer?

And I certainly understand why sportswriters ask. For one, it's an easy, no-brainer column to write. And second, it will get a ton of views/clicks/comments. Nothing gets the people going like someone asserting that their team is inferior to another and once you get an argument going, viola! You've done your job as a writer, namely, increase your readership. I get it.

But at the same time, it makes me sad. That as writers, we can't even come up with a decent angle to cover, so we fall back on the cliched prediction piece.

It's sad that as fans, we still seem to be surprised that there are people out there who don't think our team is the best there ever was.

So here's hoping that someday soon, we all wise up and rid ourselves of the fascination of the prediction. I figure it'll happen around 2013. Guaranteed.

Twins Loss Shows There's No Margin For Error For Small-Market Teams

patrick bohn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:00:13 -0400

To some, this photo shows you all you need to know about the Yankees-Twins playoff series.

You've got Alex Rodriguez, the Yankees' superstar third baseman and his $33,000,000 salary standing over Nick Punto, the Twins' utility infielder and his $4,000,000 salary.

Punto had just been tagged out after over-running third base in the eighth inning of the Yankees' series-clinching 4-1 victory in Game 3 last night. The combined 2009 salaries of of the three Yankees who combined to throw out Punto is $68,700,000.

Since in sports, salary is usually (repeat: usually) correlated to ability, maybe we shouldn't be suprised that the Yankees made this play, or won the series. When you shell out $68,700,000 for three guys, you expect them to come through when it matters. And when you have a team payroll north of $200,000,000, well, you expect to win.

But the Punto play is a perfect example of the plight of small-market teams: It's not that they can't beat their big-market brethren. It's simply that their margin for error is razor-thin.

Because for all the inherent advantages the Yankees unlimited revenue streams provide them—and there are many—New York could probably be down two games to one right now. At the very worst, the Twins should be looking at a very winnable Game 4 against Chad Gaudin.

But the Twins made mistakes. They failed to capitalize on oppurtunities. That, as much as any "Rich team, poor team" lamentations, is why their season ended.

In Game 2, it was Carlos Gomez's base-running gaffe in the 4th inning that saw him tagged out seconds before Delmon Young crossed the plate. Not only did the mistake cost the Twins a run, but with high-priced free-agent A.J. Burnett perhaps on the cusp of one of his meltdowns, it might have cost them even more.

Then it was Joe Nathan's inability to close out the game in the 9th inning with a 3-1 lead Mark Teixeira and Alex Rodriguez at the plate.

As two of the Yankees biggest recent aqquisitions, they were expected to come through in the clutch. But it wasn't like the Twins were relying on some unproven rookie to get them through the inning. They had their best pitcher, Joe Nathan, on the mound.

In same ways, this was the perfect example of how the Yankees and Twins differ. Teixeira and Rodriguez are Yankees for a simple reason: The Yankees could pay them what others could not.

Nathan, on the other hand, was on the Twins because of a brilliant trade executed by the Twins prior to the 2004 season. No lavish contracts. Just a smart General Manager who got the better of his trade partner.

It was a study in contrast. It was also a match-up the Twins had to win. Sure, it's a tough assignment for Nathan. But if Mariano Rivera can stop Joe Mauer in the 8th inning, Nathan can stop Teixeria and Rodriguez.

When he didn't, the Twins had blown another opportunity.

In the 11th, after a blown call left the Twins with the bases loaded and no-one out, Minnesota had another golden opportunity to put the game away.

Standing in their way wasn't some high-priced, experienced free agent reliever, brought in by a free-spending organization. It was at 24-year old, 17th-round draft pick named David Robertson, who was making his first ever postseason appearance and had pitched only 74 innings in his career to that point.

This wasn't a David vs. Goliath match-up. This was, well, David vs. David. But when the Twins failed to produce a run, well, the Yankees made them pay, and it was Teixeira who launched a home run just over the left-field wall for the win.

This is what happens. A big-market team like the Yankees can make a base-running error and survive because hey, next inning, there's a bunch of all-stars coming to the plate. Eventually, the talent wins out. The key for the small-market teams is to limit how long "eventually" lasts.

In Game 3, Punto's mistake negated a first and thrid, no-one out situation. Instead of having an inexperienced Phil Hughes trying to get out of a major jam, and ensuring their best hitters would come up in a run-producing situation against a struggling reliever, the Twins killed a rally and when the best hitter in the American League in Joe Mauer came up, there was a lonely runner on first and Mariano Rivera on the mound.

The rest is history.

Anyone can tell you the Yankees money has resulted in them having a team built to win. But these two games against the Twins show that no amount of money can buy a perfect team.

The Twins were at a distinct disadvantage heading into this series because of the talent gap created by the payroll gap. But, don't let the money fool you. The Yankees were there for the taking. It might have taken perfect, mistake-free baseball from Minnesota, but that's the reality for small-market teams.

Minnesota Twins: Plenty of Blame To Go Around in Their Heartbreaking Loss

patrick bohn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:44:14 -0400

Start with the beginning.

Let's face it: There are a lot of reasons the Minnesota Twins lost Game Two of the ALDS to the New York Yankees tonight. Some of those reasons are unfair; some are justified. But if we're going to take an honest look at what transpired, we've got to start at the beginning.

Reason No. 1: Joe Nathan couldn't hold the lead.

As angry as Twins fans are (and rightfully so) about what happened two innings later, if they want the Yankees fans to own up and admit their team caught a break, they have to be willing to do the same.

And the fact of the matter is, the Twins should have been celebrating in the clubhouse a half-hour earlier.

Joe Nathan is a great closer; probably the best in the American League right now. But any blame for the Twins loss has to start with his allowing two runs in the bottom of the ninth.

Sure, it was a tough assignment to retire Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez and Hideki Matsui. But that's what you have to do in the playoffs. You've got to come through when it matters. So, when Alex Rodriguez's blast cleared the center field wall and knotted the score at three, the Twins had no-one to blame but their closer.

Reason No. 2: The umpires royally screwed the Twins.

Look, I'm a Yankees fan. So you probably expect me to be some blind homer. I'm not. Joe Mauer clearly hit a double down the left field line leading off the 11th inning. It wasn't even close.

The umpire absolutely, completely, 100 percent blew that call. Given that the next two Twins got clean singles, Mauer would have scored. The Twins should have at least scored one run in that inning, possibly more.

There's really no other way to say it. I know some fans will stop reading after this point, but really, the story doesn't end there.

Reason No. 3: The Twins blew it in the 11th inning.

Regardless of the bad call, the Twins were able to load the bases with no-one out later in the inning. But a line out, ground out and fly ball ended the inning without a run being scored.

Delmon Young, Carlos Gomez and Brendan Harris all had chances to render the blown call moot by getting a base hit, sacrifice fly, hit by a pitch, whatever. They were unable to get the job done.

When a team has the bases loaded and nobody out in the 11th inning and the opposing pitcher is a 24-year-old making his first ever postseason appearance, that team has to score.

Those are chances you just can't blow. There's no reason the Twins couldn't have gone up 5-3 or 6-3 in the inning.

Reason No. 4: We don't know what the Yankees would have done in the bottom of the inning.

Regardless of the lead the Twins could have had heading into the bottom of the 9th, they still would have needed to get the Yankees out in the bottom half. And who knows what would have happened then.

The Yankees had put together a rally in both the 9th and 10th innings, although they only scored in the 9th. How do we know they wouldn't have put together another in the 11th? Would it be unlikely? Probably. But we don't know. The middle of the order was coming up again, and the Twins, like the Yankees, were deep into their bullpen.

We simply don't know that the Yankees wouldn't have won the game anyway.

So where does that leave us? I don't know. I'm not going to try to quantify each piece of the blame. But fair or not, there's plenty of it to go around for the Twins.

Why the New York Yankees Should Be Thankful for Brett Gardner

patrick bohn — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:49:23 -0400

If the New York Yankees do indeed clinch home-field advantage in the American League for the playoffs and avoid a trip to Anaheim, they should be thanking Brett Gardner.

For the third time in a week, Gardner has provided the kind of spark for the Yankees that only he can, and this time it might have led to the Yankees' biggest win of the season.

With the Yankees desperately trying to hold off their nemesis, the Angels for best record in the American League, it was Gardner who made the plays to put the Yankees ahead in the 9th inning of a 5-5 game.

He led off the inning with a clean single up the middle, and, after enduring a plethora of pick-off attempts, stole second base on a pitch-out, although he did slide off the bag and should have been called out.

While I don't dispute that the call was wrong, as the saying goes: "Fortune favors the bold." Anyone else running on that play and it's a relatively clean out.

Four hitters later, Gardner scored on a sacrifice fly, despite a great throw from Torii Hunter. Once again, Gardner was probably the only Yankee fast enough to score on that play.

And this wasn't the only time Gardner's done something like that. In fact, it wasn't the third time in the Yankees last seven games he's used his speed to key a Yankee victory.

On September 16, Gardner led off the ninth inning of a tied game against the Blue Jays with a single before stealing second. He then moved to third on a ground ball hit to the shortstop of all people.

Because he was now on third with only one out, the Blue Jays had to bring the infield in to make a play at the play on a ground ball. Which is why Fransisco Cervelli's single just made it to the outfield.

This game two days after Gardner's steal of third base in the 8th inning of a tied game with the Angels led to him scoring the winning run when Mike Napoli's throw was off, and skipped into the outfield.

Yes, once again, a better throw gets him, but at the same time, the bad throws are still a product of Gardner and his speed and the way he forces the issue. You put pressure on people to make a play, and sometimes, the can't do it.

Now I know, you're saying: "Derek Jeter could have done that. So could Damon. They're fast." Yes, they are. Jeter stole his 27th base this season in the game tonight. Damon has only ten but has yet to be caught and there are any number of strategic reasons why he's running less (Jeter being on second, the Yankees not wanting an open base for Teixeria, etc.)

However, I don't think either Jeter or Damon have the top end speed Gardner does. While they might have been able to steal the bases, I'm not sure either of them beats Hunter's throw tonight. And I'm not sure either would go to third on a ground ball to the shortstop.

Look, it's impossible to know what would have happened if Gardner hadn't done what he did. Maybe the Yankees win the games anyway. I'm fully aware of the Fallacy of the Pre-determined Outcome. However, the reality is, he did make those plays and they did spur the Yankees to victory.

And the two wins over Anaheim might be the victories that allow the Yankees to hold off the Angels for home field. If those two games go the other way, the Yanks' lead on the Angels is just one in the loss column. The Yankees do not play well in Anaheim. They really never have in this era. If the Yankees can avoid having to win a game there, should the two teams meet, it could mean a lot.

Now, that's looking very likely to happen. Thanks in no small part to Brett Gardner

Examining The "Yankee Stadium Effect" on The 2009 Yankees

patrick bohn — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:16:43 -0400

There's been a lot of talk this season about how Yankee Stadium has provided a big boon to the Bronx Bombers, with home runs flying out every which way. Some critics say the Yankees offensive numbers are nothing more than a product of their home ballpark.

(If that's you, I invite you to take a quick peek at the Yankees run total at home vs. the road. You'll be pleasantly surprised.)

And while some Yankees have benefited greatly from the park, others have not seen quite the boost you might have been led to believe. Let's take a look at the 2009 Yankees on a case by case basis here.

Note: Players are considered innocent unless something in their overall numbers suggests they are benefiting from the home ballpark. Contrary to popular belief, home runs are not the only relevant offensive statistic.

C Jorge Posada

Home: .331/.397/.657 14 HR's, 41 RBI

Road: .241/.328/.425 7 HR's, 34 RBI

Verdict: Guilty. Giant differences across the board

1B Mark Teixeria

Home: .299/.382/.617 22 HR's, 62 RBI

Road: .261/.372/.474 13 HR's, 44 RBI

Verdict: Guilty.

2B Robinson Cano

Home: .325/.355/.526 12 HR's 40 RBI

Road: .303/.337/.507 11 HR's, 36 RBI

Verdict: Guilty, but nowhere near as drastic as you might expect. The power numbers are virtually identical. This one could change by the end of the season. An 18-point OBP difference is not that much

SS Derek Jeter

Road .341/.401/.451 5 HR's 26 RBI

Home: .317/.393/.491 12 HR's, 36 RBI

Verdict: Push. Power numbers skew towards guilty, but the average is significantly better on the road. And for a leadoff hitter, home run numbers aren't as important anyway. He gets a HR boost, but that's about it.

3B Alex Rodriguez

Road: .319/.430/.497 8 HR's, 48 RBI

Home: .247/.386/.526 16 HR's, 32 RBI

Verdict: Innocent. Yeah, the home run differences are drastic, but come on. A-Rod's hitting 72 points higher on the road and averaging almost an RBI per game away from the Bronx. His OPS is actually better on the road. There's more to being a great hitter than just home runs. Overall, Rodriguez has been a better hitter on the road.

LF Johnny Damon

Road: .275/.344/.437 7 HR's, 36 RBI

Home: .297/.391/.577 17 HR's, 40 RBI

Verdict: Guilty.

CF Melky Cabrera

Road: .286/.347/.427 4 HR's, 21 RBI

Home: .271/.329/.425 8 HR's, 37 RBI

Verdict: Slightly guilty, although like Cano, one big road series can even this out. Similar to Jeter, the power numbers are better, with the rate numbers worse. The RBI total is drastic, but four home runs isn't a huge difference.

CF Brett Gardner (Yes, he's included. Had he not gotten hurt, he and Melky are likely splitting time)

Road: .290/.346/.427 2 HR's 15 RBI

Home: .229/.340/.325 1 HR, 5 RBI

Verdict: Innocent. The power numbers are too small to be meaningful, and frankly, due to the small sample size, the average difference isn't all that shocking. But, he's in no way benefited from the home cooking.

RF Nick Swisher

Home: .214/.385/.348 5 HR's, 23 RBI

Road: .284/.370/.620 22 HR's, 55 RBI

Verdict: Innocent, and it's not even close. That's one of the most staggering slugging percentage differences you'll see

DH Hideki Matsui:

Road: .294/.389/.561 12 HR's, 38 RBI

Home: .251/.340/.456 11 HR's, 38 RBI

Verdict: Innocent. Look, the difference in his rate stats are more significant than Cano's, especially in average and slugging percentage. Either way, he has not received some advantage from Yankee Stadium

So what kind of conclusion do we reach?

Three Yankees are clearly guilty of benefiting from playing at Yankee Stadium (Damon, Posada, and Teixeria). Two others (Cano and Cabrera) have seen a slight increase in numbers at home. Three (Matsui, Jeter, and Gardner) haven't seen a benefit, and two (Swisher and A-Rod) are actually better on the road.

In essence, the "Yankee Stadium Effect" seems to be captured mostly in Damon, Teixeria, and Posada. None of the other seven hitters have these drastic, across the board splits like you might have seen in Colorado in the mid-90's.

If Only: Joe Mauer's Injuries May Have Cost Him Triple Crown

patrick bohn — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:03:58 -0400

As Joe Mauer looks to put the finishing touches on his MVP season, and Carlos Pena goes down for the season, I realized something the other day: Had Mauer not missed a month of the season, he'd be in contention for the Triple Crown.

It kind of boggles the mind, but you know what? It's not as crazy as it sounds, as long as you remember I said "contention," not "a lock to get it."

We'll start with the average portion of the test.

This is sort of the wild card, because there's no way to know what he would have hit in April, or what the residual effect of playing those extra games would have done to him as the season progressed. Catchers have a nasty habit of wearing down.

That being said, Mauer hit .347 while playing 140 games a few years ago, so it's not like this .363 average is coming from nowhere. While it might not have been as high, I can't imagine it being so low that he wouldn't be close to Ichiro's .354.

Yeah, you say, but what about his power numbers?

Well, with Carlos Pena done at 39, the bar isn't unreasonably high. Mark Teixeira is second at 35 and projected to hit 40 at his current pace—although lefties in Yankee Stadium can always go off.

No one else is likely to top 40. (Yes, I know, if we're playing the "what if game" with Mauer's injury, shouldn't we play it with Pena's? Yeah, maybe, but what the heck.)

Mauer's got 26, and his power is streaky. After 11 home runs in May, he hit seven combined in June and July, then ripped eight in August. He has yet to homer this month.

If we were to simply take his season average, we see he hits a home run roughly every 4.5 games, which would have given him an extra five home runs in the month of April, putting him at 31.

As for his RBI total, if we again plug in his season average for the 22 games he missed, we'd see another 17 RBI, giving him 99 on the season. Teixeira is the current leader at 106.

I understand he may not have played every day in April (although, given the number of days off the Twins had that month, it's not inconceivable), we can't project the wear and tear, and my mathematical method is pretty basic. But if you want advanced statistical analysis, ask Rob Neyer.

But at the end of the day, it's possible, had he not been hurt, for Mauer to be somewhere in the range of eight home runs (with the gap only able to close) and seven RBI behind the league leaders. A long shot, yes, but not so impossible to be dismissed out of hand.

The fact that Mauer's injury cost him a shot at it this season is doubly frustrating, because no AL slugger is having the kind of mind-boggling season we're accustomed to. (Draw your own conclusions.)

Who knows if he'll have this chance again, let alone hit for the power needed. Injuries are a cruel mistress, and sadly, it looks like they took Mauer's shot at baseball immortality...for now.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Role, Ramiro Mendoza Style

patrick bohn — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:54:44 -0400

Let me say this right now: I do not like how the Yankees are using Joba Chamberlain.

I understand the larger issue the Yankees are trying to deal with, but New York seems to have no real defined plan with regard to Chamberlain. Instead, they seem to change the "rules" every week.

And I have no illusions that Chamberlain has an easy time pitching with such instability

And yet...part of me wishes he would just pitch better. Frankly, I'm sick of it being everyone else's fault but his own that he lets half a dozen Rangers reach base with two outs in an inning.

Look, Chamberlain's not the first pitcher to have an undefined role on a baseball team.

Anyone remember Ramiro Mendoza? He pitched for the Yankees from 1996-2002.

Mendoza's role wasn't defined. It changed weekly. Take 1998 for example, probably Mendoza's finest season, when the 26-year old went 10-2 with a 3.25 ERA.

And how did he compile that record?

Well, it began as a starter, as Mendoza pitched poorly on April 5 and 12, racking up a 6.57 ERA over the two starts.

So six days later, Mendoza came along in relief of David Cone in the sixth inning and got two outs.

Three days after that, on April 21, he was back starting, pitching seven innings of two-run ball in a 5-3 win. So after that turnaround, the Yankees must have made him a regular starter right?

Well no: Mendoza got six days off before his next start on April 28th. Then it was back to four days off before another start on May 3, this one spanning seven innings and yielding one run.

Three days later, it was off to the bullpen, where Mendoza faced three hitters in the sixth inning.

Four days after that, Ramiro started and threw a shutout, blanking the Twins 7-0 on May 10. That started a string of six straight starts where Mendoza went 3-0, 3.15. Clearly, at this point, the Yankees saw that Mendoza was better suited to start, right?

Wrong. Six days after his final start in that string, on June 15, he came out of the bullpen in the seventh inning to face six hitters, followed by a five-hitter appearance in the 7th inning on June 21.

But Mendoza wasn't just a short reliever. Nope, on June 23 he came in in the fourth inning and worked 3 1/3 innings in a loss to the Braves.

After two late inning relief appearances against the Mets, Mendoza picked up a save on July 10th, pitching the final 2 2/3 innings in an 8-4 win over the Rays.

Of course, this earned him a trip back to the starting rotation, where he pitched 5 2/3 innings on July 17 against the Blue Jays. That exertion didn't stop him from pitching on the July 20, 21 and 24 out of the bullpen though.

After a start and a win on August 4 at Oakland (6 1/3 IP), Mendoza went back to the bullpen for about seven weeks, coming in as late as the 8th inning and as early as the 3rd. Facing anywhere from one hitter to 17. Throwing as few as three pitches and as many as 79.

Of course, the Yankees couldn't resist giving him one more start on September 22, in which he went five innings and picked up a win.

All in all, Ramiro Mendoza appeared in 41 games, starting 14. He pitched on zero days rest three times, one days rest seven times, two days rest six times, three days rest four times, four days rest nine times, five days rest six times, six days rest three times and 11 days rest once. He had a 3.87 ERA as a starter and a 1.87 ERA as a reliever.

Well, obviously, all this shuttling around screwed him up right? Sure. He went 32-21 with a 3.94 ERA for the rest of his Yankee career. He started, closed and did everything in between.

And let's not forget, Mendoza wasn't treated this way in the minors. Nope, before his promotion in 1996, Ramiro was almost exclusively a starter, starting 66 of 75 games.

Now, I'm not saying Joba Chamberlain should be able to replicate this feat. Mendoza was a very unique pitcher. But he also did one thing: His job. However much it changed, however ill-defined it was, he simply went out there and pitched. And pitched well. I could be wrong, but I don't remember any public outcry over his treatment.

Sure, I get that Joba's got the ceiling of an staff ace, whereas Mendoza was the kind of guy you just gave spot starts too. So I can understand the frustration. And yes, maybe it's easier to move around a guy who you know will never become a full-time starter.

But, Mendoza also proves that it's possible to be moved around every which way as a pitcher and still be effective.

If you're still reading this, I'd like to again reiterate that I wish the Yankees would settle on a plan for Joba Chamberlain. To me, he's been dealt a crappy hand.

But I also wish that he'd start getting blamed for his ineffectiveness. Rather than every poor start being greeted with a round of "Why are the Yankees doing this to Chamberlain?" banter, I wish there would be more accountability for him.

Joba Chamberlain is an important part of the Yankees future. But he's also an important part of their present. And, fair or not, he's got to start pitching better, or the present will start looking bleak for the Yankees.

New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox Fighting Through Similar Problems

patrick bohn — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:31:41 -0400

As the regular season draws to a close, the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox find themselves in familiar spots: Occupying the top two spots of the American League East.

However, instead of smooth sailing to the postseason, both teams are dealing with eerily similar pitching woes and are running out of time to fix them.

The first issue is at the top of the teams' respective rotations. For Boston, it's ace Josh Beckett, arguably this generation's best big game pitcher.

On August 7, after facing A.J. Burnett (more on him later) in a classic pitcher's duel, Beckett appeared to have the inside track to the AL Cy Young award, with a 13-4 record and a 3.12 ERA.

Since that memorable game however, Beckett's seen a spate of home runs reminiscent of his disappointing 2006 campaign, when he allowed 36 homers in 204 innings.

Over his last five starts Beckett has allowed 14 home runs, and at least two in every start. He gave up five on August 23 against the same Yankees he had dominated just two weeks earlier.

The good news for Sox fans is that Beckett's strikeout rate stayed virtually the same in those five starts and that his walk rate actually dropped. His hits per innings total rose, but not to anything alarming. In essence, the home runs seem to be the only problem.

However, Beckett's still the ace of the Boston staff, the one who will be counted on to go against the other team's top pitcher in the postseason, and one who would start two games in a five game series. The Red Sox can ill-afford a homer-laden meltdown by Beckett in a short series.

Speaking of meltdowns, let's go to the Bronx and look at A.J Burnett. At one point, he might have been the most dominant pitcher on the Yankees. In 11 starts from May 27 to July 27, Beckett went 8-2, with a 2.08 ERA.

Since that date however, Burnett's gone winless in seven starts, three of which were bonafide disasters (Road starts in Chicago, Boston and Baltimore). Burnett's appeared visibly angry with himself on his mound, and there's still talk that perhaps he and catcher Jorge Posada do not always see eye to eye.

Burnett's now sporting a 5.14 ERA on the road, which could force the Yankees to start him at home, which, if New York doesn't have home-field advantage in the first round, would mean only one start for a pitcher who Keith Law of ESPN said might have the best "stuff" in the majors.

And while the top of the rotation is a concern for both squads, things aren't too rosy at the back ends either.

The Yankees have made do with Chad Gaudin and Sergio Mitre in the 5th slot in the rotation, although a bigger concern has to be Joba Chamberlain in the 4 spot.

New York continues to hide their cards with regard to their ultimate plan with Chamberlain, who is on some sort of innings/pitches cap that the Yankees have handled in about 35 different ways this season. How much the meddling is affecting Chamberlain isn't completely known, because he's said all the right things when asked, but the recent results have been disastrous.

Since arguably the best start of his career—eight innings of three-hit shutout ball against the defending AL Champion Rays—Chamberlain's been awful. Over his last six starts, including his most recent in Toronto, Chamberlain has allowed 23 runs in 26 innings. Those 26 innings have yielded 37 hits and 17 walks for a WHIP over 2.00.

If there's a silver lining to all this for the Yankees, it's that their lead of 7.5 games in the AL East would appear safe with only 27 games remaining. Barring some sort of historic 1995 California Angels-esque collapse, New York likely has four weeks to sort out their issues.

And despite being one-hit by Roy Halladay in their most recent game, the Yankees lineup is likely deep enough to mask the pitching issues for the remainder of the regular season.

For the Red Sox, there still remains a hole at the back of the rotation. Gone are John Smoltz and Brad Penny, banished to the National League. Paul Byrd staunced the bleeding in his first start, shutting out the Blue Jays for six innings. But he was lit up in his next start, allowing 10 hits and seven runs, while recording only seven outs in a blowout loss to the White Sox.

Byrd, who's made only two starts this season after signing a minor-league contract with Boston on August 5, was relieved in that start by rookie Junichi Tazawa, who dominated the Yankees, tossing six shutout innings against Burnett on August 22.

Tazawa wasn't much better against Chicago, yielding five runs on seven hits over 3 2/3 innings. He's now allowed a staggering 43 hits in 25 1/3 innings and has an ERA of 7.46.

The good news for the Red Sox is that they may have the answer to that problem in-house, provided the ageless Tim Wakefield and his 43-year old back can hold up. When healthy, Wakefield has been solid this season, with a 4.12 ERA. However, he missed seven weeks with an achy back and had needed nine days off following his first start back.

If Wakefield's back doesn't hold up, there's the rehabbing Daisuke Matsuzaka. Dice-K however, hasn't pitched since June 19, and was all kinds of terrible when he was on the mound, allowing an astounding 77 base-runners in 35 innings.

The biggest concern for the Red Sox might not be the lack of options in the 4th/5th spots in the rotation, but how many more starts they can afford to gamble with question marks.

While Boston's played much better in the last few weeks, the Texas Rangers refuse to go away, and currently sit a mere two games behind the Red Sox in the Wild Card race. While Texas is dealing with injury problems of their own (Michael Young, Josh Hamilton), the Sox don't have the luxury of a large cushion like the Yankees do.

While the Yankees are a virtual lock to make the postseason after missing it last year, even their vaunted lineup might be in over their heads if Burnett and Chamberlain continue to struggle. New York hasn't won a playoff series since 2004, and for that trend to change, they'll need those two pitchers to turn it around.

The Red Sox, one game away from the World Series last season, will need Beckett to keep the ball in the ballpark and someone to step up in the back if they want to hold off Texas.

Make no mistake, I'm not dismissing either team. Both have extremely dangerous lineups and other pitchers who are pitching well for them. But, if either team wants to win the World Series, they'll need to iron out their issues in a hurry.

Enough With the East Coast Bias Whining

patrick bohn — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:42:17 -0400

With the end of the baseball season right around the corner, it's time for award season.

Which also means it's time for the fans of West Coast teams to complain their teams get no respect in the national media because they're too concerned with the Eastern Seaboard teams. A good example might be the AL MVP Award, where there's a groundswell of support among many West Coast fans for Kendry Morales.

Derek Jeter's also getting quite a bit of support, and many West Coast fans dismiss this notion as typical Eastern Bias when it comes to award season.

Guess what West Coast fans? You're wrong and the numbers prove it.

Since 1994 came along and the divisions were realigned, Major League Baseball has handed out 121 Cy Young Awards, MVP Awards, Rookie of the Year, and Manager of the Year awards.

Of those 121 awards (121 since the 1996 AL Manager of the year was a tie)

46 of those were won by players and managers from Western Division teams.

41 were won by players/managers from Eastern Division teams.

34 were won by players/managers from Central Division teams.

But let's not let pesky things like facts get in our way right? Let's all band together and complain. It's a lot easier than looking at numbers.

Look, I'm not saying the media doesn't have biases. They do. We know that. And yes, we're all aware where ESPN is located.

But you know what, West Coast fans? When you look at the numbers, you're not being ignored. You're not the victim of some vast media conspiracy to anoint the Yankees and Red Sox the Grand Champions of the World. You've been represented on the award podium better than any other division.

Sure, maybe the Yanks and Sox get more games on national television. Maybe they get higher placement on Baseball Tonight. And yes, that probably sucks.

But that doesn't translate to award season. So quit acting like it does. It could be worse.

You could root for a team from the Central.

When Gardner Returns, Swisher's Pinstripes Should Vanish

patrick bohn — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:15 -0400

I specifically chose this photo because I believe when Brett Gardner finally returns from a broken thumb, Nick Swisher should not be seen in pinstripes for the rest of the season.

I'm not talking about removing him from the team completely. I just mean he shouldn't wear the uniform containing the pinstripes.

Normally, I don't put a ton of stock in splits. Eventually, they turn into something like: "He's got an 950 OPS against left-handed rookie pitchers on Tuesday nights" and lose all meaning.

But Nick Swisher's home/road splits are so drastic, I'm beginning to think there's something to them.

Swisher's home numbers: .200/.373/.309 3 HR's, 20 RBI

Swisher's road numbers: .283/.363/.622 20 HR's, 52 RBI

I know we all love on-base percentage, but there's simply no ignoring these power numbers.

Away from Yankee Stadium, Swisher's slugging percentage would be good for second in baseball, behind Albert Pujols. At home, it would be good for 158th, just behind Emilio Bonifacio. Over the course of some 60 games both at home and the road, that's too big to ignore.

Let's assume a couple of things regarding the Yankees OF/DH options in the postseason.

1) Johnny Damon will play every day, probably in left, although he may DH if Matsui can't. (Because someone's got to lead off)

2) Gardner or Melky Cabrera will play every day (Because no-one else can play center)

3) Since Hideki Matsui is too good a hitter to leave out of the lineup, he'll be the primary DH and play most every day unless hurt.

So when Gardner comes back, that means you've got two options for your everyday right fielder: Cabrera and Swisher. (Gardner doesn't seem to have the arm to play right)

At this point, wouldn't it make sense to start Swisher in just the road games and Cabrera in just the home games?

So your road OF/DH situation would look like this:

Damon-Gardner-Swisher-Matsui

And your home situation would look like this:

Damon-Gardner-Cabrera-Matsui

Obviously, all this is contingent on Gardner's return from his injury and ability to competently swing a bat. But assuming he does, this would seem, to me at least, to be the optimal solution.

Sure, we could argue Cabrera over Gardner on the road if you wanted, although to me, adding a dash of base-stealing to a lineup already loaded with power provides more balance. And with Cabrera slumping horribly right now, I don't think you'd lose as much offensively, although you would lose a good arm.

As far as playing Gardner over Swisher at home, what you lose in walks, you make up with in speed and defense. For whatever reason, Swisher's power is nonexistent at home.

Nick Swisher's been a great pickup for the Yankees, probably one of the better pickups in all of baseball this season. But, come October, I'd prefer to only see him in grey.

Understanding Sports Terminology 101: "MVP-Caliber Season"

patrick bohn — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:41:44 -0400

Over his last 18 games, Derek Jeter has hit an absurd .460 with an on-base percentage near .500. He's also shown some more power recently, with five home runs in that span.

With an average of .333, an OBP close to .400, 23 stolen bases and 17 home runs, Jeter his having one of his best all-around seasons.

This recent surge has brought up some talk of Jeter winning the MVP. I've also heard a lot of people simply mention that he's having an "MVP-caliber season."

Predictably, many non-Jeter supporters call this notion ludicrous and a clear example of East Coast bias/Yankee favoritism.

As someone who thinks Joe Mauer is the clear AL MVP choice (you can look it up), the winning the MVP statement somewhat confuses me. However, the MVP caliber statement is dead-on accurate.

To wit: There are plenty of great MVP candidates this season. Jeter, Mauer, Justin Morneau, Mark Teixeria, Miguel Cabrera even a Jason Bartlett, whose numbers are eerily similar to Jeter's. So I can understand why people are hesitant to jump on the Jeter bandwagon.

However, some people get equally dismissive when the "MVP Caliber" season gets brought up. And the only thing I can think of is that people don't understand the term.

Having an MVP-caliber season does not mean you're going to win the MVP award. It simply means you're having a season that could, when looked at independently, win an MVP award in the right season.

For example, Ted Williams did not win an MVP award in 1941 when he hit .406 (which he probably should have), losing to Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak.

Williams had an MVP-caliber season that year. So did DiMaggio. In the end, only one of them could win it. But if Williams had produced what he did in 1941 in say, 1944 (just as an example) those numbers would have been good enough.

Derek Jeter's having one of those seasons.

Dustin Pedroia 2008:

.326/.376/.493, 118 runs, 213 hits, 54 doubles, two triples, 17 home runs, 83 RBI, 20 SB

Derek Jeter 2009 (counting stats taken from the ESPN player page projection total)

.333/.396/.479, 114 runs, 219 hits, 29 doubles, one triple, 22 home runs, 76 RBI, 29 SB

Other than a big difference in doubles, the overall numbers are pretty dead even. Pedroia's slugging percentage is higher, but Jeter's on-base percentage is higher. Pedroia's projected to have more RBI, but Jeter will finish with more homers and steals.

The Red Sox finished in second place with 95 wins. The 2009 Yankees are in first place and on pace for 101 wins.

If Dustin Pedroia's 2008 performance is MVP worthy, then clearly Derek Jeter's 2009 season is of a similar caliber.

Again, I did not say Jeter deserves the 2009 award. He doesn't in my mind. Different seasons produce different MVPs.

In 2008, Dustin Pedroia wasn't going up against a catcher hitting .370 with a better OPS than everyone not named Albert Pujols.

If Derek Jeter had put together this season last year, Yankees fans and Red Sox fans would be fighting to the death about who deserved the award.

As it stands, Jeter's in the conversation. And who knows. Maybe this "bias" of writers and the Yankee "favortism" will put him over the top.

Note to all you Sabermetric fans who think the Yankees get the benefit of the doubt from voters: Derek Jeter led the American League in VORP (Value over replacement player) in both 2006 and 1999 (and ran away with the title in 1999) and has never won the MVP award.

So as the season winds down, and the MVP talk heats up, I hope this primer serves as a reminder that lots of players are MVP caliber, but only one gets the hardware.

Derek Jeter fits the former category, but not the latter.

Cashman's Non-Moves Working Out Well For Yankees

patrick bohn — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:16:34 -0400

Sometimes as a General Manager, your success and failure is measured not by the moves you make, but the moves you don't.

For the Yankees' Brian Cashman, this saying rings true.

As the trading deadline approached, it became clear the Blue Jays asking price for Roy Halladay was too much for the Yankees- so their attention turned to two lesser pitchers- Jarrod Washburn of the Seattle Mariners and Brian Bannister of the Kansas City Royals.

Either pitcher could have been had for much less than Halladay. Washburn was rumored to be available for one of the team's top prospects, Austin Jackson. Bannister likely wouldn't have cost the Yankees much beyond his salary.

Both pitchers were seen as solid, back-end pitchers who could solidify the Yankees rotation, and when the Yankees brought home neither, some fans were upset that they were unwilling to part with relatively little to improve, especially in Bannister's case.

In retrospect, maybe this was a good thing.

Since the trade deadline, Bannister has gone 1-3 with a 7.20 ERA. He's winless in his last four starts, with 40 base-runners allowed in 23 innings.

Washburn was dealt to the Tigers and has allowed at least five runs in three of his first four starts.

Considering he'll be a free-agent at the end of the year and is 35, he figured to be a regular season rental for the Yankees anyway. At this point, not pulling the trigger on a deal for him looks pretty good.

And yes, I know the Tigers didn't give up anywhere near that level of talent. But different teams pay different prices.

For details on the proposed trade, go here:

http://multimedia.foxsports.com/m/video/25587685/full-count-yanks-have-cash.htm?pageid=30686

Bannister was a guy who looked promising when he finished third in Rookie of the Year voting in 2007, but he'll be 29 by opening day next season, and has yet to improve on his rookie campaign, despite a solid start to 2009.

Sure, the Yankees wouldn't have given up anything to get him, but a guy giving up seven runs in three straight starts is going to cost you in the standings. The Yankees picked up Chad Gaudin instead, for minor leaguer Chase Weems, who at this point, has had an undistinguished career in the low minors, though he is only 20.

Gaudin has been solid for the Yankees in brief work. Certainly, he's been better than either Bannister or Washburn has been.

So remember, sometimes the best move is not making one at all.

Last Night's Yankee Performance Proves It's Not All about the Stadium

patrick bohn — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:10:15 -0400

As the Yankees pounded Josh Beckett last, drilling five home runs, it hopefully served as a reminder to fans that the New York Yankees offensive output this season is not simply a result of the new Yankee Stadium.

Yes, the home run numbers are astounding at the new ballpark. But home runs are not the only way to score runs in baseball, so if you're looking at just the home run totals to dismiss the Yankees offense, well, you're not looking at the numbers.

The Yankees, after their recent weekend in Fenway Park, are now averaging more runs per game on the road (5.63) then they are at home (5.59). They are tied for the Major League lead in road home runs with 84, and lead the majors with an .821 road OPS. They are second in the majors in road runs. Even outside of Yankee Stadium, the lineup is one of the best in baseball.

The Yankees are, as a team, just as prolific on the road as they are at home, even with the added home run boost. But does it really matter how the runs are scored? Sure, the two-run home run gets a lot of attention, but a two-run single has the same result.

Of course, the Yankees don't turn into singles hitters on the road either. The 2009 Yankees have had 222 extra-base hits at home and 242 on the road.

These numbers usually don't mean anything to fans who want to dismiss the Yankees as a product of their ballpark. To them, the home run numbers say it all. Doubles and triples have no effect on a team's offensive output.

Well, they do. And here's another newsflash: Most teams hit better and score more runs at home. It's why home teams tend to win more games. So you can't just say "The Yankees are better hitters at home! It's all a product of Yankee Stadium!" You've got to compare the Yankees home/road splits to the league as a whole.

The average MLB team has a home OPS 40 points higher than their road OPS. The Yankees' home OPS is 30 points higher than their road OPS. The average MLB team scores .29 runs per game more at home. The Yankees score .04 runs less per game at home.

So it would seem, if anything, that the Yankees' "home field advantage" for hitters is less than the average MLB team.

The home runs will always be there, staring you in the face, urging you to call the new Yankee Stadium "Coors Field East."

But, regardless of whether "chicks dig the long ball," there's more to scoring than hitting home runs, and the Yankees have proved adept at doing that, wherever they are.

With AL East Crown Within Reach, What's Next for the Yankees?

patrick bohn — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:44:34 -0400

As the Yankees put the finishing touches on the Red Sox last night, the question turned away from the AL East race, and to the larger picture.

It wasn't the prettiest of series wins for the Yankees, especially considering the pitchers they had going. But at the end of the day, New York is seven games up in the loss column, a deficit that figures to be hard for Boston to make up the way the Yankees are playing.

Yes, I know, great comebacks happen all the time. I was alive in 2004 and remember it well. But those comebacks are special for one reason: They rarely happen.

If the Yankees played even .500 ball the rest of the season, they'll win 97 games. The Red Sox would need to go 27-12 the rest of the way to equal that total. Frankly, while the Red Sox may have a run in them, the Yankees probably won't struggle that much.

So where do we go from here?

If you're the Yankees, your primary concerns are probably as follows:

(1) Get players rested and keep them healthy ( Corollary: Keep Joba's innings down)

(2) Figure out roles in the bullpen beyond Hughes and Rivera

(3) Keep A.J. Burnett in Yankee Stadium in October at all costs. An ankle bracelet may be needed.

As far as the first point goes, the Yankees have some players who, while not hurt, aren't 100% healthy. A-Rod's got his hip, Matsui's got his knee. Gardner's got his thumb. The Yankees need to make sure that all those players are as close to healthy as they can get.

The outfield/DH situation is one of musical chairs, with Johnny Damon, Matsui, Gardner, Melky Cabrera and Nick Swisher fighting for four spots. In all likeyhood, it's a question of Gardner vs. Cabrera, as they're the only two guys who can play center, and neither would give you enough production from a DH.

The "Chamberlain Corollary" while the subject of much furor, would seem to be a little more straightforward given the Yankees lead in the standings. Why push it if there's no need? Even saving 10 innings could be beneficial down the line.

As for the bullpen, the reintroduction of Damaso Marte may have some Yankee fans wringing their hands. However, the Yankees also only have one other left-hander in the bullpen, Phil Coke. Marte's also a veteran presence in an otherwise young middle relief corps. The Yankees would be remiss not to at least give him a chance.

But there's also the question of Chad Gaudin and where he fits. He certainly won't be starting for the Yankees in October, that's for sure. Would that push out young fireballer David Robertson?

As for the third point...

Look, we all know A.J. Burnett has great stuff. Keith Law of ESPN recently said in a chat he thinks it's the best in the majors (If you don't agree, yell at him, not me)

But for whatever reason, Burnett doesn't pitch as well on the road.

The funny thing is, other than his ERA being a run and a half higher, there's not a great indicator of what the problem is. He's allowing virtually the same number of hits and striking out the same number of batters on the road, and his walk rate is actually better away from the stadium, as are his home run numbers. So you figure it out.

But he's now been kicked around three times at Fenway, which should be worth something. If i'm the Yankees, he's pitching at home, especially because Andy Pettitte and Joba Chamberlain are both pitching better on the road than in the Bronx.

On a semi-related note, there continue to be more stories about supposed tension between Burnett and Jorge Posada. Nothing explicit, mind you. Mostly just interpretations of looks and possible heated words. Regardless, here's hoping the two of them have a compatible relationship going forward.

The Yankees are going to need it.

Crowded AL Cy Young Race Could Be Won By Anyone

patrick bohn — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:39:09 -0400

With only six weeks to go in the baseball season, the American League Cy Young race is a picture so muddled, I don't even know where to begin.

ESPN's Cy Predictor, which assigns point values to statistics to predict the winner, has six pitchers within 10 points of each other. The interesting thing about the mathematical formula is that it uses past results to determine value.

This is important to remember, because for example while a lot of analysts now see wins and losses as overrated, a lot of voters disagree.

In a sense, the predictor's saying: "This is who we think the voters will like," not "This is who we think the best pitcher is."

But remember, I definitely hate your team. It doesn't matter what team you root for. I hate them and that's why the articles not titled: "Why [insert your team's guy here] is the Cy Young Winner."

Josh Beckett comes in first at 127.3 points. Beckett's sporting a 14-4 record, best in the AL right now. On the other hand, his ERA (3.38) ranks eighth in the league, and is the worst among other highly ranked contenders, as is his strikeout and innings total.

The Red Sox are in the playoff hunt, and the predictor does assign a "victory bonus" to pitchers on contending teams.

Roy Halladay checks in at second, with 126.1 points. His ERA (2.78) tops Beckett's, but only comes in third in the AL. He's fifth in strikeouts with 151. Halladay's biggest issue may be his record. He's gone 3-5 in his last 11 starts (After starting 10-1), which probably won't impress the voters, because again, the voters love win-loss records.

Felix Hernandez currently takes home the bronze with 122.1 points. His strikeout total ranks third among major contenders and his ERA of 2.66 comes in second. He's 12-4, which puts him right in line with other starters, and he's pitched well recently, although like Halladay, he's not on a contender.

Justin Verlander is in 4th with 119 points. He's 13-7, but leads the league with 204 strikeouts. His ERA of 3.29 falls well behind that of the other contenders (except for Beckett).

Verlander tends to alternate dominant starts (seven starts allowing zero runs) with struggles (six starts allowing five runs or more) but many of those bad starts came in April. Since May, his ERA is 2.63. He's pitching for Detroit, which has a narrow AL central lead, but no hope of the playoffs without the division title.

Zack Greinke is in fifth with 117.9 points, but is fading fast. He's won only three times since May and his 11-8 record pales in comparison to the other contenders.

While he's second in strikeouts and first in ERA, his ERA is 3.66 over his last 15 starts, and soon could climb above other contenders if he keeps struggling. Playing for the Royals sure isn't helping.

Mariano Rivera checks in at sixth with 117.2 points. I can't really compare him to the other starters, but I can say this: I do not hate the Minnesota Twins. I am not a biased New Yorker, and this is not my formula.

Yes, Joe Nathan has a better ERA and more strikeouts, but Rivera's five additional saves and "victory bonus" are the difference right now. (Nathan is currently in 9th and is behind David Aardsma of Seattle)

The dropoff to 7th is a rather steep 10 points, so we'll stop there. In summation, I've got no clue how this thing will play out. There is simply no clear cut favorite.

Note: I did not include WHIP, Complete Games, or other numbers in my analysis because ESPN's Cy Predictor makes no mention of them. You may love Sabremetric stats, but a lot of voters don't use them.

As I stated, this is more a column of who WILL win based on historical voting, not who SHOULD win.

I think Beckett's reputation as a big-game pitcher will help him in the voting, and he'd probably be my pick to win it, but I'll also say this: If a closer won it, I would not be surprised. This season is a perfect example of how closers can take this award home.

Dennis Eckersley should know. As great a closer as he was, he didn't win it in a year in which his ERA was 0.61, but instead 1.91. Why? Because the year it was 0.61, Bob Welch went 27-6. The year he won it, Jack McDowell went 20-11.

If nobody wins 20 games this year, I think you're going to see Rivera and Nathan move up the list higher than you might expect.

Once you start spreading out votes, it's not even a matter of how many first place votes you get. It's the second, third, and fourth place votes that can make the difference.

Derek Jeter's Other All-Time Record

patrick bohn — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:34:11 -0400

I'm kind of amazed I haven't heard more about this on the YES network, but maybe I just don't watch enough TV.

Derek Jeter is on the verge of becoming the New York Yankees' all-time hits leader, topping Lou Gehrig, a statistic that isn't so much incredible as it is slightly hard to believe.

Jeter's been a great player for a really long time, but he's never been in that otherworldly class of previous Yankee greats, at least for very long. So I almost can't believe it myself. Jeter's not only going to break the record for Yankee hits (he currently stands at 2,694 to Gehrig's 2,721), he's going to destroy it! By the end of his career, he's going to be so far out in front of Gehrig, he may not be caught. Ever.

Bill James' "Favorite Toy" (Google it) predicts Jeter to wind up with 3,502 hits, about 800 more than Lou Gehrig.

If anything, Jeter's soon-to-be record points out one thing: longevity and walks can play tricks on you.

Babe Ruth didn't become a Yankee until he was 25 years old, but his career average as a Yankee was identical to Jeter's best average (.349). However, he averaged only 138 games a season as a Yankee and walked 123 times. So even though both players have been Yankees for 15 years, Jeter's had almost 1,300 more at bats than Ruth.

Lou Gehrig also walked a ton, averaging 113 a season as a Yankee. And, as we all know, his career was cut short by his illness, which ended his career at 36.

Joe DiMaggio wasn't particularly adept at walking, but he missed three full seasons to serve in World War II, and injuries forced him to retire at 36.

Mickey Mantle averaged a mere 135 games played as a Yankee, and his career average of .298 didn't help. But like Gehrig and DiMaggio, he had to retire at 36 due to physical problems from a variety of injuries.

Only two players after those great four ever mounted serious challenges. Bernie Williams, who finished with 2,336 and who had longevity, but no truly great seasons after 33, and Don Mattingly, who was also derailed by injuries and had no great seasons after turning 28.

This isn't to diminish Jeter's upcoming milestone. To get 2,722 hits in the major leagues is not easy.

It's simply to put it into context. Jeter's been relatively injury-free, unlike many other Yankee greats. And he's also not much for patience, taking only 66 walks per year on average.

And while not even the biggest Jeter fan on the planet would ever consider him to be a better hitter than Mantle, DiMaggio, Gehrig or Ruth, it's still important we put this record in the right context.

Minnesota Twins Fans Don't Judge a Trade Too Soon

patrick bohn — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:48:48 -0400

November 13, 2004 is a date that Twins fans will remember. It's the date they traded A.J. Pierzynski for Joe Nathan, Fransisco Liriano and Boof Bosner.

At the time, Pierzynski was a solid, if unspectacular, catcher, having hit .301 up to that point for the Twins. Nathan was an emerging star for the Giants bullpen, going 12-4 with a 2.96 ERA. Liriano was moderately impressive in the San Fransisco farm system, as was Bosner.

By 2006, this was looking like one of the most lopsided trades in recent baseball history. Nathan went 7-0 with a 1.58 ERA and 36 saves as one of the best closers in baseball. Liriano went 12-3, 2.16 with 10.7 strikeouts per nine innings. Bosner was solid in the middle of the rotation, going 7-6 with a 4.42 ERA.

Overall, the three pitchers went 26-9 with a 2.73 ERA. The Twins looked like they had a second ace in Liriano (to put behind Johan Santana), a solid back-end pitcher in Bosner, and one of the best closers in the game.

Pierzynski hit .272 with 11 HRs and 72 RBI in one season in San Fransisco before being let go.

But a funny thing happened on the way to this trade going down as John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander.

Liriano got hurt at the tail end of 2006, missing almost all of the last two months of the season, and the entire postseason. Since then, he's been struggling, with a solid 2008 marred by a terrible 2009 . He's made only 36 starts since 2006, missing time with Tommy John surgery, and is currently 5-11 with a 5.29 ERA for Minnesota (and he gave up seven runs in two innings last night)

Bosner went 11-19, 5.44 in 2007 and 2008, and is, for all I know, out of baseball. The two pitchers combined have gone 22-34 with a 5.18 ERA since 2006 (not including Liriano's train wreck Monday).

Nathan has been a superb, lights-out closer, sporting a 1.61 ERA with 105 saves since 2006.

Ultimately, while the Twins still got the better of the deal, because, hey, it's Joe Nathan, I really can't say it was the world's most lopsided deal. The 2006 Twins won the AL Central but failed to win a single game in the postseason.

After 2006, Bosner and Liriano have had a relatively minimal impact on the Twins, possibly even detrimental. In essence, this trade has became Nathan for Pierzynski. Lopsided, yes. But baseball's version of Great Train Robbery? Not quite. Not any more.

Now this could change. Maybe Liriano can make his way back and become a solid pitcher. But this trade has definitely swung from "major advantage: Twins" to just "Advantage, Twins"

Let this serve as a warning: The true "winners" of trades are often not determined until years after they're made.

I'd Give Stephen Strasburg Whatever He Wants and So Should The Nationals

patrick bohn — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:58:32 -0400

Forget the endless debate on whether or not Stephen Strasburg will perform well enough to whatever contract he signs, or declines. Most players drafted don't make an impact on the game, so, even for a talented guy like Strasburg, there's no sure thing.

Well except for this:

The Washington Nationals need him. Even if he doen't become the star many people predict he will be.

The Nationals are a faceless franchise. Ryan Zimmerman may be a solid player, and I know he's a local boy, but he's not the kind of guy you go to the ballpark to see.

Stephen Strasburg is, and that's why the Nationals need him.

Their attendance has plummeted by 5,500 people per game. And let's remember, attendance figures are measured by tickets sold, not fans in seats. You could play in front of an empty ballpark and still have an "attendance" of 23,500.

And it goes beyond that.

According to a Washington Post article on June 2, the Nationals' television ratings were the worst among all American-based teams, at 0.53, or 12,000 households. That number put them behind both the Washington Wizards and Washington Capitals, and even the Baltimore Orioles.

The Nationals are fast becoming irrelevant in Washington—if they aren't already.

Stephen Strasburg will change all that.

He may not be great, and he may only pitch every five days, but he'd provide a buzz around the team. He'd gave fans a reason to show up those five days.

The Nationals failed to sign their first-round pick from last season, Aaron Crow. If they don't sign Strasburg, what does that tell the fans?

This is the reality, fair or not: Small-market teams have to rely on homegrown talent in order to win. There is no other way for them to do it. They don't have the money to go after free-agents, and if they're bad, no-one will want to play for them anyway.

So when a team like Washington can't even get the guys they drafted signed, how are they supposed to sell the fan base on rebuilding?

What do you have to lose if you're Washington?

You've got a terrible team, horrid attendance, and no elite young talent (although Jordan Zimmermann is very good). If they sign him and he's terrible, the team is no worse off than they were before. Yes, they could sign a couple of players for Strasburg's price, but they're running the same risk of those players flaming out. There's really not a great big downside.

But if they hit on Strasburg, well, now you're taking a step. You're telling your fans you're committed to winning. You're bringing in the franchise's first bonafide star; their first must-see attraction. You've got a face, a name. You've got relevance.

But only if you go for it.

This "True Yankee" Stuff Has Got To Stop

patrick bohn — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:34:37 -0400

Last night, Jorge Posada crushed a ball to right center field against the Seattle Mariners.

The ball hung up in the air for a long time, hit the very top of the wall, landed, bounced twice, and was retrieved by Mariners' center fielder Franklin Gutierrez. This was not done quickly. As you can see in the photo, Gutierrez crashed into the wall, meaning he wasn't in a great fielding position when he landed.

In fact, if you saw the game, you'll know he wasn't even initially aware of where the ball was when he came off the wall.

Almost immediately upon Gutierrez picking up the ball, the camera cut back to Posada, a good 30 feet from second base, and not even bothering to run hard, because he was too busy waving his hand in the air, signaling for a home run.

Posada eventually scored, although it was only because the Mariners took too long turning a double-play two hitters later.

I know Posada's never been fleet of foot but it's inexcusable that he was not running harder on that play. Frankly, he should have been on third base. That ball was hit to right-center and it took the Mariners forever to get the ball in.

If you watched Posada leave the box, you know what he was thinking: "This is a home run". Heck, we know he was thinking that even after the ball was, you know, lying on the field of play as the outfielders looked for it.

This is coming a week after Posada was thrown out at the plate against the Red Sox, on a play where he looked like he had no clue the outfielder had even attempted a throw. Making no attempt to slide, or even avoid the catcher, Posada simply half-raised his arms, being easily tagged out.

It also came a week after Posada appeared visibly angry at Alex Rodriguez for not scoring on a double Posada hit in the 8th inning against Boston.

To quote Dan Rydell from Sports Night: "Are you mental?"

Look, I get that A-Rod is supposed to be a better runner than Posada. (Even though A-Rod clearly has a bad hip) But I find it incredibly grating that after making a terrible base-running error, Posada, three days later, visibly gets angry at A-Rod, only to follow it up with yet another base-running error a few days later.

But this is not a piece about running hard. The rah-rah Little League stuff is fine, but it's not what I'm getting at here. This is about something running much deeper.

This is about "True Yankees."

I have no idea who coined the phrase, or when it first occurred, but it's out there. We all know it. Brian Cashman gave me an autograph once and wrote: "To Patrick, a 'True' Yankee." That is not a joke.

And let's face it. We all know who the fans consider "True Yankees." Essentially, it's anyone who played on the team from 1996-2000. Specifically, it's guys like Bernie Williams, Andy Pettitte, Derek Jeter, Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius, Mariano Rivera, Tino Martinez and others.

Jorge Posada belongs in that group.

Who's not a "True Yankee?" Pretty much any big free agent counted on to replace those guys. Mike Mussina, Jason Giambi, Randy Johnson, Gary Sheffield.

Alex Rodriguez belongs in that group.

For the most part, if you're in the first group, postseason collapses will not be blamed on you.

Because in the eyes of so many Yankee fans and media, guys like Jeter and Posada have earned it. Because of what they've accomplished before, they're given (mostly) free passes for any poor performance in the postseason. New guys like A-Rod, or Giambi, or Sheffield are pointed to as the reasons for failure because, hey, the Yankees were winning just fine until those guys showed up.

Now, you may be wondering what one of these has to do with the other. And after I tell you, you may think I'm making something out of nothing. That's ok.

But this is my point: If the fans, media, and even the General Manager are familiar with the concept of "True Yankees," you can be darn sure the players are.

And you can be sure they know who falls under that protected sphere and who doesn't.

Please note: I am not accusing all Yankee fans of this. But we all know they're out there, and they know who they are.

So when I look at Jorge Posada not running hard, while at the same time criticizing Alex Rodriguez for, in Posada's opinion, doing the same thing, here's what I see: A "True Yankee" calling out a "Not True Yankee," and knowing full well he can do it.

Imagine for a second if A-Rod had thrown up his hands or shouted angrily as Posada ran/walked/staggered across home plate against the Red Sox.

Imagine if A-Rod yelled at Posada for not scoring on one of his doubles.

You don't think he'd be ripped in the press or by the fans? You're telling me the groundswell of support wouldn't be with Posada, and we'd be calling out A-Rod for being a bad teammate and saying he was only concerned about his stats?

Of course we would. Because Jorge Posada's been to five World Series. A-Rod's been to none. This is how it works for a lot of Yankee fans. A-Rod's A-Rod, Posada's Posada, and this is how things go.

This is not a column ripping Jorge Posada. I'm simply using the most recent events as the example. Heck, before he was anointed with "True Yankee" status, Tino Martinez was booed by fans when he struggled in April of 1996. I guess all it took were four rings to earn the love.

I'm just saying it's got to stop. Comparing guys like A-Rod, Mussina, Giambi, Teixeria, or Sabathia to ghosts of Yankee's past is not only unfair, it's probably detrimental. You don't think these guys are aware of the fans' perception of them? You don't think A-Rod's probably aware that there are Yankee fans out there who'd prefer Scott Brosius, he of the .257 career average, to him?

(Fun fact: Scott Brosius was a below-average league hitter during his career with the Yankees, and had a .303 OBP in 1999 and 2000)

Don't you think it's time we stop embracing or denying Yankee players acceptance under some concept like being a True Yankee? At what point do we move on? At what point do we say that, hey 1998 was a decade ago, so maybe if we flame out in the postseason this year, you share the blame equally.

Because if we let the players know that no-one's immune to criticism, maybe the newer guys won't feel so much pressure. Maybe they won't feel like it's all going to come down on their heads when it goes wrong.

And maybe, just maybe, we could get Jorge Posada to run a little harder.

Joe Mauer Is the American League's Most Valuable Player

patrick bohn — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:28:04 -0400

I almost can't believe I'm writing this. I'm a Yankees fan, so if anything, I should have decided last night that Mark Teixeira is the MVP of the American League.

Well, he's not. Neither is the power-hitting first baseman for the Twins, Justin Morneau. I'm going to talk about my Mauer in relation to Teixeira here, but nearly everything I write about him could be written about Morneau, (their numbers are virtually identical and they both play first) so Twins fans, don't accuse me of not knowing who he is.

Joe Mauer's got my vote. And you know, right now, it's not even close.

Everyone's got their own criteria for what makes a player "valuable." One of the things I look at is the position he plays.

This is an undeniable fact: It's not hard to find a power-hitting first baseman. They grow on trees. First-base is a power position. Power-hitting catchers are impossible to find.

Case in point: There are three catchers in Major League baseball with an OPS over .800. There are 18 first-baseman with OPS' over .800.

One way to think about this is to imagine you're an AL GM and you're building a team. If you decided you wanted power from your first baseman in the American League, you'd have five guys with an OPS between .988 and .928. You'd have options.

Miss out on your top guy, and there's going to be someone else you can take that will give you similar production.

Pass on Mauer in the AL, and you're seeing a drop off in OPS of 238 points in your catcher. That's the difference between Mauer and the next best catcher in the league. 238 points.

Think of it this way: The difference between the best catcher and second-best catcher in the American League is triple the difference between the best first baseman and fifth-best first baseman.

This gives Mauer added value to any team he's on. His numbers simply can't be duplicated by another catcher in the majors. If he goes down, he's irreplaceable. You can't just hide some guy with no glove at catcher. First? You can do that if need be. The Yankees shoved Gary Sheffield there for a time.

Ask a GM who the best first baseman in the AL is. You'd get some people saying Morneau, some might go with Teixeira, some might even say Miguel Cabrera or Kevin Youkilis. All those players have been given serious MVP consideration recently.

No one would even think twice before putting Mauer down. There's simply no argument that can be made for any other catcher in baseball.

Maybe you don't believe in positional value. Okay, not everyone does. But Mauer's numbers are better across the board.

Mauer: .375/.442/.622/1.067

Teixeira: .288/.385/.565/.950

Forget being better, these numbers aren't even close. You might say that Teixeira's defense is superb, and you'd be right. So is Mauer's. If you're a Yankees fan, you remember the play he made on Brett Gardner, racing back and diving to tag him at the plate. No other catcher is athletic enough to make that play.

Right now, there are two main arguments against Mauer for MVP. One is that the Twins will likely miss the playoffs while the Yankees won't. Everyone has their opinion on it. Most people can't be convinced to change their minds, so I'm not going to bother. I don't think it matters in this case, but if you do, okay. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The other argument is that Mauer missed a month of the season due to injury, and that missed time is too valuable. Essentially, you're talking about six months of Teixeira vs. five months of Mauer.

This one I can understand. You can't help your team when you're not playing, so missing a month really hurts your team, especially, as I pointed out, when there's a lack of options behind you.

But I still think the numbers that Mauer gives you at catcher are too good to ignore. Heck, his numbers period are too good to ignore.

Now, Mauer's a catcher, and catchers tend to wear down later in the year. So I'll be very interested to see if he can keep his average and power numbers up for the rest of the season. Right now, he's the winner in my mind.

Enough With The Sergio Mitre Complaining

patrick bohn — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:12:38 -0400

I'm going to come to Sergio Mitre's defense.

For weeks now, Yankees' fans have been bemoaning every start by Mitre as proof of managerial incompetence. And, to some extent, they're right in that. Well, at least they're right in hating Mitre With a 1-1 record and a 7.04 ERA in five starts. He's proven to be pretty terrible.

My question is this: So what?

I don't mean that Mitre deserves credit for how he's pitched. I simply mean this: He's a fifth starter, back-end fodder, a guy you throw out and pray for 12 runs from your offense.

And nearly every team in the majors has one. Heck, a bunch have two. Are they all quite as bad as Mitre? No, but if nothing else, they're close enough to qualify as equally awful in the real world.

We really should stop acting like the Yankees are the only team on the planet to waste starts on terrible pitchers. It's the cost of doing business in baseball.

Don't believe me? Look at the numbers. For purposes of fairness, I'm going to set Mitre's five starts as the number of starts to qualify for this study. I'm going to set a minimum ERA of 6.00. You may consider this unfair, since it's a run lower than Mitre's, I would counter that once you clear 6.00 with a starter, you're probably not winning anyway so what's the difference?

Boston: John Smoltz: Eight starts, 8.32 ERA, Dice-K: Eight starts, 8.32 ERA

Baltimore: Jason Berken: 15 starts, 6.63 ERA, Rich Hill: 13 starts, 7.80 ERA, Adam Eaton: Eight starts, 8.56 ERA

Toronto: David Purcey: Five starts, 7.01 ERA, Casey Janssen: Five starts, 6.63 ERA

Tampa Bay: Scott Kazmir: 17 starts, 6.50 ERA, Andy Sonnanstine: 15 starts, 6.61 ERA

Detroit: Dontrelle Willis: Seven starts, 7.49 ERA

Cleveland: David Huff: 16 starts, 6.72 ERA, Fausto Carmona: 15 starts, 6.37 ERA

Kansas City: Kyle Davies: 16 starts, 6.11 ERA, Sidney Ponson: Nine starts, 7.36 ERA

Anaheim: Ervin Santana: 14 starts, 6.38 ERA

Texas: Matt Harrison: 11 starts, 6.11 ERA

Seattle: Carlos Silva: Six starts, 8.48 ERA

Oakland: Dana Eveland: Six starts, 8.00 ERA

Philadelphia: Antonio Bastardo: Five starts, 6.75 ERA

New York Mets: Tim Redding: Nine starts, 6.12 ERA

Atlanta: Jo-Jo Reyes: Five starts, 7.00 ERA

Washington: Scott Olsen: 11 starts, 6.03 ERA, Ross Detwiler: 10 starts, 6.40 ERA, Garrett Mock: Five starts, 6.14 ERA

Houston: Felipe Paulino: 11 starts, 7.28 ERA

Milwaukee: Manny Parra: 19 starts, 6.26 ERA

Cincinnati: Homer Bailey: 10 starts, 7.48 ERA

Pittsburgh: Virgil Vasquez: Seven starts, 6.09 ERA

Arizona: Billy Buckner: Seven starts, 8.63 ERA

Teams lacking in such a starter:

Chicago (AL), Minnesota, Florida, St. Louis, Chicago (NL), Los Angeles, Colorado, San Fransisco, San Diego

Teams employing multiple such pitchers:

Boston, Baltimore, Toronto, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Kansas City, Washington.

Twenty teams in all, employing 29 starters who made a total of 313 starts.

Now, I know some of these guys no longer have spots in rotations, whereas the Yankees seem like they may trot Mitre out a few more times. But there are also plenty of bullpen arms with ERA's that bad (Brad Lidge, anyone pitching for the Cubs). And there are plenty of guys who haven't made five starts yet but have gotten the call occasionally and have ERA's over 6.00. There are also guys right on the cusp of that limit, so this list will look different in October.

Notice too, that of the nine teams not employing such a starter, seven of them came in the National League.

Additionally, six of the seven teams with multiple pitchers on the list came from the American League. Every single team in the AL East has two starters on the list. Life's tougher in the AL.

Look, maybe you consider this to be an arbitrary study. At the end of the day, each of you can set your own bar for awful.

But if nothing else, this should tell you something. Nearly every team in the Majors will flush a bunch of starts down the toilet. There's simply not enough quality pitching in the majors for teams to be immune to it.

Don't you think the Red Sox wish they hadn't wasted eight starts on Smoltz? You don't think Tampa Bay is wondering where they'd be if they weren't stuck giving the ball to Sonnanstine and Kazmir so often? Detroit probably regrets the seven starts they gave Dontrelle Willis right now. Heck, Cleveland could be in contention if they hadn't blown 30 starts on Huff and Carmona.

I know, the Yankees are the Yankees, and if any team should be immune to this kind of stuff, it should be the Bronx Bombers and their unmatched financial resources.

But come on, is Mitre really going to short circuit the playoff run? The Yankees have won Championships with similar guys taking the ball:

1996: Ramiro Mendoza: 11 starts, 6.79 ERA

2000: David Cone: 20 starts, 6.91 ERA

The 1998 and 1999 teams didn't have anyone nearly as bad, but in fairness, the 1998 Yankees are never going to be matched, anyway.

But lest we forget, the Yankees weren't counting on Mitre to be their fifth starter. At best, he was their seventh starter. And we all know he won't see the field when the playoffs come around (And yes, I am assuming the Yankees will make the playoffs, I don't think it's a stretch).

And, while the Yankees have been hurt by Mitre's ineffectiveness, they've benefited from hitting against a lot of equally bad pitchers who probably incur the wrath of their fanbase. They've beaten Smoltz, Sonnanstine, Berken, Hill, and Eaton, among others.

Sure, Jarrod Washburn and Brian Bannister are probably better options than Mitre, and the Yanks had a shot at both.

But Washburn's been awful in two starts in Detroit (8.74 ERA) and Bannister's given up 14 runs in his last two starts since becoming available at the deadline (12.60 ERA). So be careful before you go anointing them as the saviors of all things Pinstriped.

None of this was written to excuse Sergio Mitre's performance. It's been awful. But let's have some perspective Yankees' fans. This is what happens in baseball. As terrible as he is, Sergio Mitre is not going to cost the Yankees anything in the long run because he's hardly alone.

Division III Football's Dynasty Problem

patrick bohn — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:01:57 -0400

(Author's Note: Please disregard the photo. Finding one of a Division III football team is next to impossible but apparently, you need a photo in every piece.)

Most of you here probably love college football. In all likelihood, most of you know very little about Division III football. And I've got to tell you, you're missing out on some good stuff. There are the same great rivalries, great plays and great games on the Division III level, even if the overall level of play is admittedly lower.

One of the best things about being a D-III fan is we know who our National Champion is every year. If you thought of that as a back-handed jab at the BCS, well, you're half-right.

But in actuality, we D-III fans really do know who the champion is, usually before the season starts. We really don't have many teams to choose from.

The past four seasons, the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater and Mount Union (Ohio) have met on the final Saturday of the year to determine who the best team in the Division III world is.

You may have heard of Mount Union. They're arguably the most successful college football team playing right now. Laugh at the level of competition all you want; when a team goes 179-5 over a 13-year span, that's impressive. Larry Kehres, Mount Union's coach, has a career record of 275-21-3 (.924) which makes him the winningest coach (based on winning percentage) in college football history.

If you were a Division III football fan, Mount Union was the unstoppable force AND the immovable object.

That is until 2005.

That's when the UW-W Warhawks showed up and announced it was a two-person party in D-III. Whitewater was a good, but not great team, coming off a pair of 7-3 seasons as a member of the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. All of a sudden, they were 14-0 and giving Mount Union all they could handle in the Stagg Bowl, although they ultimately lost 35-28.

The scene repeated itself in 2006, as Whitewater again went undefeated before losing to the Purple Raiders in the title game.

In 2007, the Warhawks finally broke through, topping Mount Union 31-21. Their only loss that season was to Division II St. Cloud State.

Last season reverted to the norm, as Mount Union ran the table and topped Whitewater, who had actually lost to someone else in Division III—Wisconsin Stevens Point.

In the past four seasons, these two teams have lost two games to other Division III teams. Some people look at this as a great thing, because the presence of two great teams raises the profile of Division III in a way that parity probably never will.

Personally, I think it's a bad thing.

Full disclosure: I grew up rooting for another Division III team, Ithaca College. The Bombers were one of D-III's powerhouse teams from the 70's to early 90's. So it's possible I'm just experiencing sour grapes.

I know other sports have dynasties. The Yankees seem to be in contention every year, and college teams like USC and Florida are perennial contenders. So are the Patriots.

But to me, there's a difference between saying, "USC's going to be good and could contend for a title" and actually seeing the same teams in the title game year after year. When it crosses the line from "strong probability" to "essentially forgone conclusion," you're in the danger zone.

Now, some people may think I'm saying I don't think these two teams deserve their success. That's not true. You play the games to the best of your ability. And if your best is better than everyone else's, well, more power to you.

But you can be upset at the consequences of a situation, even if you don't blame those responsible for creating the situation. Mount Union and Whitewater deserve all the wins they get.

But man, it kind of stinks for the rest of us.

The best way I can describe it would be this: Go ask a Pittsburgh Pirates fan how they feel about the upcoming season and their chances to win a World Series. Most Division III teams, even the really good ones, feel the same way.

One of the biggest factors in fan attendance is the "uncertainty principle". Essentially, it's the idea that we watch games because we don't know who's going to win. In Division III football, we're on the cusp of losing that. Most teams don't have a hope against these two squads—especially Mount Union.

It's getting to the point where the first 14 weeks of the season are beginning to feel like a formality. The first poll of the 2009 season has Mount Union and Whitewater at the top two spots. Mount Union returns 17 of 22 starters, although they will need to replace their starting quarterback and running back. Whitewater returns 20 of 22 (I believe).

I want to again point out that I hold nothing at all against the two teams involved in the domination of Division III football. If you've earned those wins, you can stay on top until someone proves they're good enough to knock you off. That hasn't happened in the last five years, and in no way am I asking for either team to apologize for their success.

Nor is this a "it's not faaaaiiirrr. How come no-one else gets to play in the National Title game?" piece.

Quite honestly however, part of me wonders if this doesn't hurt the reputation of Division III football as a whole. If two teams are so dominant, do you run the risk of people assuming the rest of the teams are just mediocre? Because that would be unfair to other excellent teams like Mary Hardin-Baylor, North Central, Hardin-Simmons, and others.

But most football fans will only know about Division III football what they see on TV. And the only Division III football game on National TV is the Stagg Bowl. If they get a fifth straight year of Mount Union-Whitewater, could we blame them for thinking it's those two teams and everyone else?

I even find myself, a huge Division III fan and a fervent supporter of one of the country's premier D-III programs, (Ithaca) wondering: How can no one else be good enough to beat these guys? Shouldn't someone be able to do it, eventually?

Here's hoping 2009 brings that possibility to life.

Home Field Turning Into a Must for the Yankees

patrick bohn — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:26:03 -0400

Normally, I think there's too much emphasis placed on home-field advantage. Most players and coaches will tell you it only really matters in the last game of a series, and besides, if you're a good team, you should be able to win on the road right?

How many times do you see a series go the distance where the home team wins every game? The list is pretty small when you consider all the series being played.

So I usually roll my eyes at analysts who spout off about the importance of home field advantage in the playoffs. I mean, everyone's better at home right? With the exception of the Phillies and the Diamondbacks, every team in Major League Baseball has a better record at home.

And the Yankees have the second best road record in the American League, so it's not like they're slouches away from the Bronx.

But right now, the Yankees look almost unbeatable at home. Since Alex Rodriguez returned to the lineup on May 8th and the Yankees essentially became the team you'll see in the playoffs, New York has gone 35-11 at home, including today's walk-off win courtesy of Robinson Cano.

For those of us not inclined to doing math, that's a .761 winning percentage. It would equate to a 123-win season. The 1998 Yankees, arguably one of the best teams in recent baseball history, had a .765 winning percentage at home. This current Yankees team haven't lost consecutive home games in nearly two months.

Any time you find yourself favorably compared to the 1998 Yankees, you're doing something right.

And those wins have come against some solid competition. Sweeps of Boston and Detroit, and series wins over Texas and Tampa Bay highlight the recent run.

Home-field is even more important for New York because the Angels are likely to be in the postseason. Since the start of 2005, the Yankees have gone 4-20 in Anaheim, including the playoffs.

The Yankees will not beat the Angels in the playoffs if they do not have home field. They're more likely to win a series in the Kingdome.

Sure, the Angels are the American League's best road team, and the Yankees don't play them well anywhere. But there's no way anyone on that team wants to play in a must-win game out there, locker room cliches of, "This team can win anywhere" be dammed.

Currently, the Yankees hold a one game lead over Anaheim in the loss column. The two teams play four more times in the regular season, including a three game series in Anaheim, Sept. 21-23. That series could very well determine who has home-field advantage in the American League.

The way the Yankees are playing at home right now, that might be enough to get them back to the World Series.

Cole Hamels Should Serve As a Warning for Joba Chamberlain

patrick bohn — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:39:56 -0400

As Cole Hamels mysteriously struggles through 2009, Yankee fans that aghast over Joba Chamberlain's innings limit should take note. This is exactly what the Yankees are guarding against. This is where the "Plus 40" rule for young pitchers comes into play.

In 2006, Hamels threw 181-1/3 innings as a 22-year-old rookie splitting time in the minors. His 2007 workload was almost the same: 190 innings, including the playoffs.

Then 2008 came along. The Phillies took home the World Series, and a 24-year-old Hamels was the ace of the staff, leading the NL in WHIP while finishing sixth in ERA and strikeouts. But he did throw a ton of innings—262 to be exact. That's a jump of 72 innings.

Hamels' ERA went from 3.06 to 4.77 this season and his WHIP has ballooned from 1.08 to 1.33.

The "Plus 40" rule is a guideline, not a hard number. Tim Lincecum increased his workload by 50 innings from 2007 to 2008 and he seems to be fine.

But 72 is a major jump. I'm not a Phillies fan, so I haven't seen much of Hamels this year. If you have, and you've heard the scuttlebutt behind his current struggles and I'm wrong here, please tell me.

What's Chamberlain looking at if he stays in the rotation? Depending on how many times he goes in the postseason (assuming the Yankees make it) a 70 inning increase might be the low end. He's averaging five-and-a-half innings per start. The Yankees have 49 games remaining. Chamberlain, who pitched last night, could be looking at another eight starts in the regular season.

Eight starts would, at his current pace, add about 45 more innings to his total, putting him at 166 by the end of the season. He's likely to only see one start at most in any postseason series. If the Yankees make the ALCS, he could throw another 10 innings, putting him at 176 total. An increase of 76 innings.

We're in Cole Hamels territory now.

And remember, this is an estimate based on his current average, which, let's face it, is on the low end. Recently, he'd begun pitching better, averaging six-and-a-half innings over his past five starts.

If we use that number as a guideline for the rest of the year, you'd be changing his total to about 186 innings. The Yankees probably would prefer him in the 150 range.

Now look, I know for every pitcher done in by an excessive workload at a young age, you can find one that survived it. But why risk it? Are 30 to 40 extra innings this season really worth it?

Response to possible objection, "There's risk in everything! You can't guard against it all.": True, but not being able to guard against every risk is no excuse for not guarding against the ones you can.

I also know the Phillies won the World Series last season, which probably earned them, and Hamels, a grace period. And the Yankees have a shot to win it this year. I get that.

But the Yankees are expected to win every year, especially by the fans. (Maybe Philadelphia works the same way. Let me know, Phils fans.) If they ride Chamberlain to a title this season and he misses a chunk of time next year due to injury, or becomes ineffective, do you think Yankee fans will say "It's ok, we won the Series last year?"

I highly doubt that. More likely, people will rip Girardi for overusing him and blast Cashman for not having a viable alternative to replace him. Why do I think that? Because Cashman and Girardi get ripped for everything bad that happens to the team, and the Yankees only have the best record in the Majors and are on a torrid run right now.

If you're a GM or manager, especially in New York, why wouldn't you cover your bases?

The Yankees will not miss out on the playoff because Chad Gaudin takes two or three starts from Chamberlin. Heck, at the end of the day, the Yankees probably don't even need Chamberlain in the rotation in the postseason to win it all. Would he help? Obviously.

But the Yankees are going to ride A.J. Burnett and CC Sabathia (not to mention their lineup) this postseason. Andy Pettitte's a perfectly viable third starter who's not exactly a stranger to the postseason.

Four-man rotations are all the rage in the playoffs, but heck, with all the off-days, you could probably go to a three-man and not kill your staff if you had the right guy at the top.

Using the 2008 ALCS and the 2009 Yankees staff as an example:

If you wanted to work your ace on three days rest, this is how it would go down.

Game One Oct. 10: Sabathia

Game Two Oct. 11: Burnett

Game Three Oct. 13: Pettitte

Game Four Oct. 14: Sabathia on short rest

Game Five Oct. 16: Burnett on normal rest

Game Six Oct. 18: Pettitte on normal rest

Game Seven Oct. 19: Sabathia on normal rest

Hardly an exertion. Sabathia would make one start on short rest in this scenario. Everyone else works on normal rest. I'm not saying this is how the Yankees would play it, because obviously, the moves they're making now with Chamberlain are done with an eye to the postseason.

I'm simply doing it to illustrate the point that, if worse came to worse, the Yankees could survive without Chamberlain this year

Chamberlain is a big-time weapon for the Yankees. And there's no doubt he's a better pitcher than any other guy they have right now to replace him. But I don't blame the Yankees for being cautious with him.

MLB Fans: Baseball Isn't Football

patrick bohn — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:03:52 -0400

Football is, without a doubt, the most popular sport in America right now. The amount of time devoted to the draft alone dwarfs coverage of many sports.

I don't really think it's an issue, except I feel that the football fan's mentality is creeping into baseball, and that can be dangerous.

In college football, you can go undefeated and not get a chance to be considered for being a National Title. Even big-name programs from power conferences can sometimes only suffer one loss and be left out in the cold—I'm looking at you Colt McCoy.

Over in the NFL, 11-5 may get you a trip home after the regular-season, and as any Patriot fan can tell you, the "one game decides everything" reality of the playoffs can bite even the best teams.

So I understand why football fans sometimes go nuts after losses, because you don't exactly have a lot of wiggle room. There isn't a lot of room for mulligans, trap-game mistakes, or even plain bad luck.

What I don't understand is how this mentality has moved to baseball.

Baseball has a 162-game schedule. The most successful team ever in that format, the 2001 Mariners, lost 46 times. The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals lost 83 times including the playoffs and they won the World Series.

The reality is this: Baseball teams lose. A lot. To teams they're better than. In manners in which they shouldn't.

And yet, some fans can't seem to accept this. Mostly, it's fans of successful teams because, well, they're used to winning. The logic they use isn't necessarily flawed. Most times, their team is the better team. The better team should win. Therefore, if they don't win, well, someone is to blame. And blame they do.

And sometimes, they're right. Sometimes, there is a mistake so blatantly obvious, (Think, Grady Little in 2003) that someone's got to lose their job. And sometimes, if it's an ultra-important game, a win becomes a necessity. I get it. If you're a Red Sox fan, I can say you're probably correct in being upset about how Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS went.

But if you're a Yankees fan and you're getting worked up because New York, who had gone 18-5 in their last 23 games, lost to the Toronto Blue Jays on August 10th 5-4, well, don't you think it's going overboard? Just a little?

I can imagine some objections, so I'll try to address them here.

1) Hey, every game is important. Just ask the 2007 Padres.

Yes, if the Padres had won any of the 73 games they'd lost in the regular season, they'd have made the playoffs. But that logic cuts both ways. Don't you think some of their 89 wins were the result of beating teams they were worse than? Or because the other team's manager screwed up a move? Or because they just got lucky?

2) As a fan, you should root for your team to win every game, and expect them to. That's part of being a fan. You don't say "Eh, the Phillies will probably lose tonight."

There's a difference between rooting for, and even expecting your team to win, and being unable to accept that it's ok they've just lost. You might say you think your team will win the night before every game, but no fan sits down on March 17th, looks at their team's schedule and says "You know, if things break right, 162-0 is possible". Holding a team to an impossible standard is not being a fan. And knowing the Yankees are going to lose a few dozen times this year and being ok with that doesn't make someone a bad fan. I may not know which games the Yankees are going to win, but I know somewhere throughout those six months, there are going to be 60-70 losses sprinkled in there.

3) Yeah, but if you start saying losses are ok, then the team doesn't get motivated, and then those 60-70 losses turn into 85 and you miss the playoffs.

Every player, owner, manager and fan wants to win every single game. But any player, manager or owner will tell you that you can't get hung up on a single loss in the regular season. It's not about saying it "doesn't matter" if you lose. It's about understanding that it's impossible to win every game and looking at the bigger picture. I admit, this last one is a fine line to walk, but it's one fans need to do.

4) The media does that all the time

While I think that that is one of the worst things about sports media, I would argue they don't do it to the extent that the fan does. Besides, if the media's doing it, it's probably because they're aware the fan wants that. The media will talk about anything they think fans want to know. Additionally, when you're required by your job to come up with something interesting to talk about every single day, that's what you'll do. Trust me. When it's your job, you've got to write about a lot of things even you may not see as important.

I want my team to win as much as the next person. But I'm not going to sit there, lamenting every move made or not made, that contributed to every loss and demanding someone pay for it. In baseball, that mentality just doesn't make any sense. I used to be that way, and man, it was draining. Sure, in the playoffs, things may change. But I'm not going to go crazy because the Yankees lost to the Nationals on June 17th.

I'll save that for the first Atlanta Falcons loss of the year.

Yankees Sweep Of Red Sox Shows Brian Cashman's Moves Paying Off

patrick bohn — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:31:41 -0400

I'm amazed I'm writing another piece on Brian Cashman's job as Yankees GM, but the Yankees recent series against the Red Sox went so perfectly, I felt it would be remiss to not mention it.

I'm also amazed that people still continue to be unsatisfied with this team's direction. (And if you read message boards—not that you should—you'd know there are plenty of them out there)

Up until this series with Boston, a lingering question still remained.

Can the Yankees beat the Red Sox?

The Yankees might have been in first place by two and a half games, but they still had to get past the Boston Red Sox.

Losing three of four this weekend would have undone a lot of good.

But that didn't happen. And Cashman's acquisitions in the off-season are the reason why the Yankees are in control of the AL East.

A.J. Burnett? Seven innings of one-hit ball against Red Sox ace Josh Beckett in what will likely be remembered as the best game of the year for the Yankees.

C.C. Sabathia? Nearly eight innings of two-hit ball. Like Burnett, he didn't allow a run.

Mark Teixeria? He went 6-17 (.353), got on base at a .476 clip, and hit a pair of home runs, including the game-winner Sunday night

Nick Swisher? He got on base in eight of his 15 plate appearances and had a two-run single that provided the Yankees with some cushion Sunday.

In all, Cashman's two big pitcher signings this off-season pitched 14 and two-thirds innings this series, allowed no runs, three hits and struck out 16.

His two big hitters reached base 18 of the 36 times.

If that's not impressive enough for you, you're being unrealistic.

I have this theory that some Yankees fans can't ever be satisfied with Cashman because they believe, with unlimited financial resources, he should be able to sign whomever he wants.

And since he can sign whomever he wants, it stands to reason that the Yankees should never be in "need" of something—because Cashman should be able to just go out and pick up whatever they need.

Therefore, failures get placed on his shoulders.

Additionally, I think fans are impressed by degree of difficulty.

Signing CC Sabathia and Mark Teixeria?

Well heck, everyone knew they were the best players available.

Signing a guy like Brad Penny, or John Smoltz? Under the radar moves illustrating a superior knowledge because, hey, no-one else thought of them.

They must know something we don't.

Success is measured in results. Not how many people call it a shrewd move in interviews.

Signing Smoltz and Penny were two afterthoughts who suddenly were supposed to give the Red Sox unmatched depth. Burnett, Teixeria and Sabathia? Typical Yankees signings of the best players; a team blindly opening its checkbook, oblivious to the rest of the world.

Well, it's not quite as simple as that. It's not like you just call up Sabathia's agent, fax him over a blank check, and say "Fill it in", although apparently some fans think this is all Cashman needs to do.

It's a mistake to assume the Yankees have "unlimited" financial resources. The Steinbrenners want to win, and yes, they will outspend anyone to get a win. But that doesn't mean Cashman could pull a Tom Hicks and bid 70-80 million more than anyone else to assure himself of getting the player he wants.

Regardless of weatlh or desire to win, no owner wants to spend 240 million dollars when 180 million will do.

Eventually, the purse strings will tighten. So when other teams are involved, especially the Red Sox, Cashman has to be careful how he negotiates.

It's also not every free agent's dream to play for the Yankees because they're "winners".

The Red Sox are pretty big winners right now.

So are the Phillies, or even the Dodgers.

The Yankees don't have a monopoly on success, and not everyone is as awestruck by ghosts of Yankee past and "26 World Championships" as Yankee fans are.

Lots of people thought Sabathia wanted to play on the West Coast. The Red Sox were going hard for Teixeria and their financial resources aren't exactly limited either. The Yankees were not the pre-determined destination for those two.

So it's not quite the easy process some Yankees fans make it out to be. Cashman had to make some big moves this off-season, and so far, they've all come up big.

Enigmatic Nikolai Zherdev Latest Piece in N.Y. Rangers' Puzzling Off-Season

patrick bohn — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:10:54 -0400

Nikolai Zherdev is an enigma.

In sport lexicon, the word enigma is rarely a good thing to have attached to your name. It usually means you're blessed with more talent than you display, or that the people paid to know how to use your talent can't figure out the best way how.

Knowing this was Zheredv's reputation in Columbus, can we be surprised that he continued to play that way for the Rangers? At times, he was brilliant; at times aloof.

And now he's gone, banished to unrestricted free agency after the Rangers walked away from his arbitration.

While many people will rejoice over getting rid of a guy like Zherdev, the kind of talent you can't count on for consistent play, I think it's part of a disturbing trend for the Rangers.

This team is going to be stuck in limbo for awhile.

Why? Despite their retooling of the roster this off-season, the Rangers aren't much better off than they were last season.

The Rangers main problem was putting the puck in the net. They ranked 28th in the NHL last season with a mere 200 goals. Only five players topped the 45-point mark last season.

Four of them—Zherdev, Nik Antropov, Marcus Naslund and Scott Gomez—are gone.

This does not strike me as a positive change.

Granted, Gomez's contract was killing the Rangers and Naslund's tank was empty, but for a goal-challenged team to drop most of their goal-scoring talent, well, that's got the possibility to create problems.

Now, there are going to be rebuttals, many centered on the addition of Marian Gaborik. He's a very talented player with 45-50-goal potential, if he can stay healthy.

Oh yeah, there's that. Gaborik's played in only 272 of his team's last 410 games. That's essentially 1/3 of his team's games missed over the last five seasons. The last time he played a season and didn't miss a chunk of time was 2003. And we're banking on him for five years?

Then there's everyone's favorite young sparkplugs, Ryan Callahan and Brandon Dubinsky. Look, I know that young, cheap, homegrown guys with lots of energy are easy to fall in love with, but let's not go crazy here. Dubinsky's 13-28-41 line isn't much different from his rookie year campaign and to expect him to put up 70-75 points is unrealistic, regardless of his wingman.

As for Callahan, I know he scored 22 goals last season, but it took him 237 shots to do it. No-one on the Rangers had a high shooting percentage, but Callahan's ranked just 5th on the team (Minor contributors excluded).

What I'm saying is, Callahan and Dubinsky are solid 2nd line guys, but they'd have a hard time cracking most, if not all, teams top line.

Chris Drury? He's massively overrated, the product of the media's fascination with "clutch" and talented lineups around him. Don't believe me? Look at his numbers.

He's only topped 60 points (a relatively modest bar to clear) four times. Twice in Colorado in 2000 and 2001 playing with Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Milan Hejduk and Alex Tanguay on teams that went to the conference finals and won the Stanley Cup.

And twice for the 2006 and 2007 Buffalo Sabres, who also went to two conference finals and scored 281 and 308 goals those two seasons.

Drury's the kind of player who plays well when there are talented players around him. He's not the kind of player who makes mediocre players around him better. His career numbers don't lie. Ten seasons in the NHL, 578 points.

Solid production? Sure. But, much like Callahan and Dubinsky, that's the ceiling. Solid, but not game-changing production.

Other newcomers Chris Higgins, Brian Boyle, Tyler Arnason (speaking of enigmas) and Ales Kotalik are more of the same. Guys who are can score 15-25 goals and put up 45-55 points a season.

In other words, not a top-flight scorer in the bunch.

Teams don't win without top flight scorers in the NHL anymore. The days of constant 2-1 games are over. Here are the top two scorers from the five most recent NHL champions (Point totals only listed)

2009 Penguins: 113 and 103 points

2008 Red Wings: 97 and 93 points

2007 Ducks: 94 and 78 points

2006 Canes: 100 and two and 76 points

2004 Lightning: 94 and 80 points

The Rangers top two returning scorers from last season: 58 and 43 points. (Gomez and Kotalik)

As I learned on Sesame Street: "One of these things is not like the other"

Now maybe you're saying to yourself: "The Rangers will win because of Lundqvist, just like those Devils teams did and they didn't score a lot!"

There are two problems with this argument:

1) Martin Brodeur then > Henrik Lundqvist now

There's no other way to say it. Martin Broduer is arguably the greatest goaltender of all-time and he was in his prime back then. Lundqvist is a very good, sometimes great goalie who is still too inconsistent to be considered in Broduer's class (again, this is Broduer THEN, not now)

2) Scott Stevens + Scott Niedermayer > Every single Rangers defenseman since Brian Leetch.

Most teams are lucky to have one Hall of Fame defenseman. The Devils had two on the ice at the same time. The Rangers don't have anyone remotely that talented anywhere.

The Rangers, despite all their off-season maneuvering, still lack top-flight scoring. And without that (or a dramatically improved blueline) they will not be able to contend this season.

Releasing Zherdev might help locker room chemisty. But it won't help on-ice production either. Which means the Rangers are probably going to be hanging around the 6-10 spots in the East next year.

Here the Falcons Go, Down that Same Old Road Again...Maybe

patrick bohn — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:59:56 -0400

So after the Atlanta Falcons' surprising run to an 11-5 record last season, the inevitable talk began: "Could this be the season the Falcons have back-to-back winning seasons for the first time ever?"

When you think about it, it's kind of a staggering problem, even for a franchise that hasn't been around very long. But with a loaded offense featuring Matt Ryan, Roddy White (we hope), Michael Turner, Tony Gonzalez, Jerious Norwood and others, plus a solid if unspectacular defense, the Falcons look like the might actually be ready to pull this off.

And yet...

Haven't we been down this road before? What about 1991? Or 1998? Or 2004?

Well sure, all those teams were good, and the follow-ups failed miserably. So, if you're a relatively young Falcon fan, you might be regarding this season with the same sort of outlook.

I'm here to say the following:

Don't worry.

Oh, I don't mean "don't worry about this season." Atlanta's schedule is brutal, they have a young quarterback, a running back who's coming off his first season, and well, the defense isn't much to write home about.

I just mean, don't use 1991, 1998 or 2004 as your guidelines for worry. Atlanta is not a cursed franchise. They just haven't been very good. And those three teams were, by and large, flukes.

Now, before I get a slew of hate, let me tell you: That's a good thing. Because these teams were flukes, next season's failure shouldn't have been a big surprise. And since the current team isn't anything like those teams, you shouldn't be worried. Let's go through the 1991, 1994 and 1998 teams, see how they succeeded, and how that's different from this year's Falcons.

1991: I'd Rather Be Lucky than Good

The 1991 Falcons were a truly lucky team. They went 10-6, and probably should have finished something closer to 7-9. Why?

Well, first, there was what was probably the most memorable win in recent Falcons history. Billy Joe Tolliver hit Michael Haynes with a Hail Mary pass as time expired to stun the Niners, 17-14

Next, it was a fourth quarter rally from 20-10 down in New Orleans to win in overtime, 23-20.

Finally, it was a 21-point fourth quarter against the Packers, aided by a touchdown on a fumbled kick return and a blown punt snap. Chris Miller hit Andre Rison with 41 seconds to go.

Now I know every team has fluke victories. But Hail Marys and fumbled punt snaps are the epitome of luck. Atlanta was a deeply flawed team that year. Leading rusher Steve Broussard had less than 500 yards rushing, making Atlanta one-dimensional. They also had a very brittle starting quarterback, Chris Miller.

Defensively, the team survived by getting turnovers—35, to be exact—but allowed many points and yards as well.

So what happened the next season? Miller got hurt, playing in only eight games, the running game was awful—team leader Broussard ran for 363 yards, and the team scored three rushing touchdowns all season. The defense secured a dozen fewer turnovers, but still allowed a staggering amount of points (414) and the team went 6-10.

Why this team isn't that team:

The main reason: This team has a running game. Michael Turner ran for 1,700 yards last season, and Jerious Norwood chipped in with close to 500 more. One-dimensional teams are easy to stop, and this team won't be.

Additionally, this team figures have its quarterback the whole season. I know, injuries are odd things, but Chris Miller was always hurt. He made only 92 appearances in 10 seasons in the league.

A strong running game and healthy quarterback are likely to keep this squad from suffering the same fate as the 1992 team.

1998: The Magical Season

The greatest Falcons team of them all, Dan Reeves' club went 14-2, stunned the Vikings in the NFC title game and made it all the way to the Super Bowl. They had the conference's leading rusher, Jamal Anderson, a capable veteran quarterback in Chris Chandler, and they led the league in turnover differential.

So what happened?

Anderson blew his knee out after 19 carries. With no running game to speak of—Byron Hanspard and Ken Oxendine averaged only 3.0 yards per carry—the offense turned stagnate. Chandler missed four games due to injury.

The schedule was merciless. The Falcons played all four eventual conference championship participants—going 0-5 in the process.

Why this team isn't that team

Chandler was another quarterback who was always hurt, and the team lacked capable depth at the running back position. They also lacked depth at wide receiver, as Tony Martin left following the 1998 season. Fullback Bob Christian was second on the team with 40 catches. Terrance Mathis was 32 at the time and more suited to be a number two wideout than the main option

This year's team has more depth at running back, as Norwood is worlds better than Hanspard, and will be in moderately capable hands should Turner go down. Assuming Roddy White's holdout doesn't affect the team, the wide receiver corps may be the deepest it's ever been, and the team has a great tight end in Tony Gonzalez. O.J. Santiago, Atlanta's tight end in 1999, proved to be only a one-year wonder.

2004: Vick runs the Falcons into the playoffs

The 2004 Falcons were led by the electric Michael Vick, who ran for over 900 yards and teamed with Warrick Dunn and T.J. Duckett to be the league's most dangerous rushing attack. The Falcons went 6-2 in games decided by seven points or less.

Next year's team wasn't so lucky. Despite starting 6-2, Atlanta faded down the stretch, going 2-6 to end the season, including a 44-11 embarrassment at home to end the season. They went 3-4 in games decided by seven points or less. Vick continued to be a better athlete than quarterback, completing only 55% of his passes and throwing only 15 touchdowns and 13 interceptions.

Why this team isn't like that team

To start with, Ryan's a better quarterback than Vick. I know Vick was a tremendous athlete, and he made other teams game plan for him, but he simply could not make the needed throws to be a top-flight quarterback.

The wide receiver are the same in name, but Roddy White and Michael Jenkins are much better now than they were back in 2004.

Finally, though, I normally hate things like this, I think this year's team is mentally tougher. They've got a balanced offense that doesn't rely on one player to get the job done. They've got a coach who won't drop to his knees in shock when a pass is dropped. They're the kind of team that can rebound from losses—going 5-0 following a loss last year—which should help them avoid the late season swoon that killed the 2005 squad.

So that's it. No need to despair, Falcon fans. The ghosts of seasons past won't be coming around this season.

I hope.

Steriods? We've Survived Worse

patrick bohn — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:15:08 -0400

As the list of players who tested positive for PED's in 2003 continues to be made public, I'm struck by the number of people who consider this some horridly damaging black-eye on the sport of baseball.

Jayson Stark of ESPN wrote this in response to Alex Rodriguez's admittance, saying Rodriguez had committed "a crime against the once-proud history of the sport."

Full disclosure: Jayson Stark is a better writer than I am. He knows more about baseball than I do. So please, if you disagree with me, don't pepper me with comments about how I'm an idiot for questioning him.

However, I just don't understand where Stark is coming from here. He seems to be implying that Major League Baseball had a proud history, and this steroid scandal has tarnished it. Bear in mind, this is a sport that:

1. Had a World Series fixed in 1919.

2. Didn't allow black players to play the game until 1947.

3. Had widespread amphetamine use starting in the 1940's.

4. Had a cocaine scandal in 1985 resulting widely publicized drug trials and leading to the suspensions of 11 players.

5. Had owners engaging in league-wide collusion in the mid-'80s.

6. Had a World Series cancelled by a player's strike in 1994.

So apparently, racism, game-fixing, collusion, drug-use, and strikes all contribute to a "proud history"? And yet, steroids damage it irreparably? Are you kidding me?

Look, I get some of where Stark's coming from. We weren't alive in when the Black Sox scandal broke, most people agree that segregation and racism are terrible things, and again, we weren't around for it. You can't carry the burden for things you didn't experience. I understand that part.

But there's a difference between saying, "It's not part of MY history, and most fans' history," and saying "It's not a part of BASEBALL'S history."

Whether or not we were around for it, those six things (and others) happened. And they were all things that chipped at either the integrity of the game itself, or the way we view players and owners.

A lot of baseball fans—and writers—have a romanticized view of the sport, and as I said, for many of their lives, the sport have been relatively unscathed by scandal.

But turning a blind eye to the history of the sport, while roundly criticizing modern players for causing damage to the soul of the game unlike anything we've ever seen is not only unfair, it's ignorant.

Make no mistake, this steroid thing is a mess. It's not a good thing for baseball; not in the least. But let's not kid ourselves here: Worse things have happened to baseball before, and the sport has survived. Bad things will happen to the sport in the future, and it will survive.

Give Brian Cashman a Break

patrick bohn — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:19:45 -0400

Over the past few days, Brian Cashman has been given a lot of flak for his failure to pull of a deadline deal. Most fans point to the moves made by the Red Sox and Phillies and say "Other contenders are improving their team! Why aren't we?"

As if Cashman has somehow left the 2009 Yankees ill-equipped to compete this season.

Spare me.

Brian Cashman took an 89-win team from 2008 and added the following:

1. CC Sabathia, the best pitcher available, who won the 2007 CY Young and was the most dominant pitcher down the stretch in 2008

2. A.J Burnett, coming off an excellent 2008 campaign in which he went 18-10, 4.07 and led the American League in strikeouts

3. Mark Teixeira, the best hitter available on the market, and the Yankee with the highest OPS this season. He's arguably been the best all-around player on the team this season

4. Nick Swisher, who practically carried the Yankees' offense in April and has been solid all-around, considering he was simply supposed to provide outfield depth, not be an everyday player.

The Yankees needed an ace after Wang went down and Mussina retired? Check. Heck, they even picked up a No. 2.

The Yankees needed to get younger, better defensively and get more production out of first base? Check

The Yankees needed outfield depth? Check

But it's still not enough.

It's not Brian Cashman's fault that Wang was a complete and utter train wreck. Or that Phil Hughes—for the second year in a row—was disappointing as a starter. Or that Xavier Nady blew out his elbow. Or that the Yankees can't seem to beat a team with the word "Sox" in their name.

So the Red Sox got Victor Martinez. Yes, he's good. The Yankees lineup is still better. Yes, the Tigers got Jarrod Washburn and didn't give up a whole lot. The Yankees would have needed to give up Austin Jackson or Jesus Montero to get him.

And that's a lot to give up for a 35 year-old pitcher whose last great season before now was in 2005 and who was 23-43, 4.55 over the last three seasons.

The Yankees probably could have picked up Brian Bannister, and I'm fully aware that sometimes it's the role players that make the difference in the post-season.

But you know what? The postseason is a crapshoot. In 2000, the Yankees and Mets had the worst records among playoff contenders. They made the World Series.

The 2001 Mariners won 116 games and went 6-3 against the Yankees in the regular season. Ask them how that went.

Want something more recent? How about the 83-win Cardinals of 2006? Their staff got regular starts in the regular season from Jason Marquis, who was so terrible, his ERA was 6.02 and he led the league in losses. The second best ERA from a starter was Jeff Suppan's 4.12. They beat a 95-win Tigers team that had FOUR pitchers with lower ERA's than that.

The point is, this Yankees team was not left out in the cold by their GM. He's given them more than enough to contend. The 2009 Yankees have no-one to blame but themselves if they come up short.