Saturday, April 28, 2007
Could Rivera be done?
There's a 5 percent chance that Mariano Rivera is done as a useful reliever.
Last night, I'm told by a friend in the NY area, Al Leiter remained silent on Rivera as his partners in the booth tried to minimize what was going on (1/3 IP, 3H, 1 BB, 4 ER, failed to get out of the inning against Boston, at home). That's telling. Leiter is a good announcer, and knows something about pitching. Rivera is not intimidating anyone, and is throwing a very hittable cutter.
It's most likely that Rivera is still a very good closer this year, but more mortal.
The reason that there's a possibility that this is the end, though, is that he has been so dependent on one amazing pitch.
Ordinarily, a guy like Rivera, who's been very good and very tough for such a long time, is able to outthink hitters even as his stuff becomes less dominant-- think Pedro Martinez or Curt Schilling. But if Rivera's cutter deserts him entirely-- which I don't think will be the case, not this abruptly-- then that could be it.
Meanwhile, rumors are, in the Post and the Times, that Torre's job might be in jeopardy if the Sox take another couple from the Yanks this weekend. So, there's some extra incentive to root, root, root for the good guys and get Torre fired.
Now, I've felt since seeing Beckett and Matsuzaka in spring training, and since they moved Papelbon to the pen, that the Sox are the favorites in the AL East this year.
That said, it's April. The Yankees are 8-13. They've overcome poor starts to win the division recently. Their pitching staff this season will never be great, but right now, it's really banged up. Neither of those things are Torre's fault.
The Yanks are the highest-scoring team in baseball. Once their pitching is somewhere near average-- which will happen-- gravity will reassert itself, and the Yankees will be a top AL team for the millionth year in a row under Torre.
Or, the Boss can hit the panic button, and make it that much more likely that the wheels will come off.
Last night, I'm told by a friend in the NY area, Al Leiter remained silent on Rivera as his partners in the booth tried to minimize what was going on (1/3 IP, 3H, 1 BB, 4 ER, failed to get out of the inning against Boston, at home). That's telling. Leiter is a good announcer, and knows something about pitching. Rivera is not intimidating anyone, and is throwing a very hittable cutter.
It's most likely that Rivera is still a very good closer this year, but more mortal.
The reason that there's a possibility that this is the end, though, is that he has been so dependent on one amazing pitch.
Ordinarily, a guy like Rivera, who's been very good and very tough for such a long time, is able to outthink hitters even as his stuff becomes less dominant-- think Pedro Martinez or Curt Schilling. But if Rivera's cutter deserts him entirely-- which I don't think will be the case, not this abruptly-- then that could be it.
Meanwhile, rumors are, in the Post and the Times, that Torre's job might be in jeopardy if the Sox take another couple from the Yanks this weekend. So, there's some extra incentive to root, root, root for the good guys and get Torre fired.
Now, I've felt since seeing Beckett and Matsuzaka in spring training, and since they moved Papelbon to the pen, that the Sox are the favorites in the AL East this year.
That said, it's April. The Yankees are 8-13. They've overcome poor starts to win the division recently. Their pitching staff this season will never be great, but right now, it's really banged up. Neither of those things are Torre's fault.
The Yanks are the highest-scoring team in baseball. Once their pitching is somewhere near average-- which will happen-- gravity will reassert itself, and the Yankees will be a top AL team for the millionth year in a row under Torre.
Or, the Boss can hit the panic button, and make it that much more likely that the wheels will come off.
Labels: baseball
Friday, February 23, 2007
Washington Nationals blogging.
First off, Manny Acta gets it (via). He's open to being persuaded by data from millions of at-bats, even if it cuts against conventional wisdom. How about that. "It's been proven to me that a guy at first base with no outs has a better chance to score than a guy at second base with one out. That has been proven to me with millions of at-bats," he explained.
I've never felt much more than contempt-tinged fanataical apathy for the Nats since Jim Bowden spent Fort Knox to bring the mediocre and decrepit Cristian Guzman and Vinny Castilla to the left side of the infield. But a manager who takes facts into account rather than folk tales... that's pretty intriguing.
Second off, Chad Cordero says that he was pressured by the union not to take the deal he'd been offered b the Nats, even though he liked the deal. "I don't know why I didn't sign [the two-year deal]," Cordero said. "I wanted to. The Players Association thought I had a good case and they wanted see how it turned out. Even if I lost my arbitration case, I wasn't going to lose. It's still a lot of money. It's still more money than I ever would have thought [I'd make]."
The MLB players' union is run with a determined animosity toward management, regardless of the well-being of the players. See, e.g., the union's refusal to take drug testing seriously until Congress raised hell. The bulked-up superstars got huge deals, and anyone in AAA struggling to make it, well, let them eat steroids.
The union's all-encompassing animosity and mistrust was well-founded three decades ago. Now that the union has the upper hand, winning every dispute with the owners in that time period, that attitude has outlived its usefulness. Cordero-- who deserves some blame here for going along-- didn't sign a deal he liked, because the union wants to stick it to management every time they possibly can, consequences to players be damned.
I've never felt much more than contempt-tinged fanataical apathy for the Nats since Jim Bowden spent Fort Knox to bring the mediocre and decrepit Cristian Guzman and Vinny Castilla to the left side of the infield. But a manager who takes facts into account rather than folk tales... that's pretty intriguing.
Second off, Chad Cordero says that he was pressured by the union not to take the deal he'd been offered b the Nats, even though he liked the deal. "I don't know why I didn't sign [the two-year deal]," Cordero said. "I wanted to. The Players Association thought I had a good case and they wanted see how it turned out. Even if I lost my arbitration case, I wasn't going to lose. It's still a lot of money. It's still more money than I ever would have thought [I'd make]."
The MLB players' union is run with a determined animosity toward management, regardless of the well-being of the players. See, e.g., the union's refusal to take drug testing seriously until Congress raised hell. The bulked-up superstars got huge deals, and anyone in AAA struggling to make it, well, let them eat steroids.
The union's all-encompassing animosity and mistrust was well-founded three decades ago. Now that the union has the upper hand, winning every dispute with the owners in that time period, that attitude has outlived its usefulness. Cordero-- who deserves some blame here for going along-- didn't sign a deal he liked, because the union wants to stick it to management every time they possibly can, consequences to players be damned.
