AS A PHILOSOPHER OF THE FUTURE,
Nietzsche likely had the sports pundit in mind when he conceived of man as a herd animal.
During this midseason's break madness, evryone in the punditsphere seemed to be asking the same question: can the Yankees catch the Red Sox, will the Yankees catch the Red Sox? I know that's two questions, but evidently they don't, becasue they treated these two propositions as coextensive with one another. Actually, they are not just 2 different questions, they differ in that one is a question, will they, and one is not in question at all? Obviously, the yankees can catch the Red Sox, have the theoretical capacity to accomplish this task, are sufficiently competent to keep such a mission within the realm of possibility. Will they catch them is another matter altogether.
Why does the heard treat these questions as one entity. Because their answer, no on both counts, is entirely centered on the Sox. The Yanks will not catch them becasue they cannot because the Sox are just too good to fold. now this is all preposterous in a number of respects. Firstly, with a 7 game gap and 70 to play, a team may be caught without "folding." Of course the gap used to be 14.5, which points to the fact that the Sox, far from being immune to the swoon, have already been doing their share of exactly that. Since the end of May, the Red Sox record is exactly the same as the Kansas City Royals record, and if that isn't folding what is. Of course the Sox could wellm fold and still avoid being caught by the Yankees.
Why does the Big Red Press assume their beloved Sox can't fold despite the abundant evidence to the contrary? Their pitching is apparently too good, too deep or both (the minor variations in the bleat of the sheep). A pitching staff with Tavaras as its fifth starter can hardly be called too deep, and one that also has Wakefield as its fourth starter can hardly be called too good. All the more so since the bullpen, though monstrous strong at the end, is almost as weak in the middle as the Yankees'. The too strong, too deep predicate ultimately rests on the notion that the Sox have not 1 but 3 bona fide Aces in their rotation, as well as the best closer in baseball. I won't quibble the last point, although Joe Nathan and K-Rod might be counterposed, but the 3 Ace thesis is just further preposterousness. Schilling was no ace before he went on the DL, and while the Nation-al spokesman are fond of saying he'll be rested and ready, a brief glance is enough to confirm he's also fatter than ever and not shape. Schilling hasn't been scaring good teams since 2004 and invoking him as an ace now is an exercise in nostalgia. As for Dice-K, he's just great, as long as the opposition isn't very good. He has had 2 weak starts against the Yankees, been clubbed by the Indians and the Tigers, chased by the White Sox, beated badly by the Blue Jays. He has not been very good when he doesn't get alot of runs. His record, 11-7, is good but not ace-worthy; his ERA, 4, is good in the AL but not Ace worthy. his record at stopping losing streaks is okay, but not Ace-worthy, and his propensity to blow up in the 4th or 5th inning is dangerous for Boston come playoff time. That leaves Beckett, a true ace this year, but alone in that regard. Tavaras, Shilling and Wakefield have all been very bad in their last 4-5 starts; Dice-K has been bad in 2 of his last 3. The slump Boston has experienced since the middle of June is directly tracable to a pitching rotation "too strong" and "too deep" to allow it to happen.
If Boston wins the East this year, it won't be because their pitching was too great or because they were so good as to be uncatchable. It will be because the Yankees have already blown 10-15 games they should have won, because the Yankees still only have three starters worhty of the name, because an already bad bullpen was destroyed by mismanagement, because Damon is hitting in the 230's etc. etc. We who have watched in agony as the Yankees sink into an unworthy decline can only stand amazed at the fact that they are a mere 7 games behind, and if we seek an explanation for this undeserved good fortune, the last place we will find it is in Boston's invincibility.
But then one should remember that the pundits report less on the games being played than on the sound of their own collective voice. That's what being a herd animal is all about.
During this midseason's break madness, evryone in the punditsphere seemed to be asking the same question: can the Yankees catch the Red Sox, will the Yankees catch the Red Sox? I know that's two questions, but evidently they don't, becasue they treated these two propositions as coextensive with one another. Actually, they are not just 2 different questions, they differ in that one is a question, will they, and one is not in question at all? Obviously, the yankees can catch the Red Sox, have the theoretical capacity to accomplish this task, are sufficiently competent to keep such a mission within the realm of possibility. Will they catch them is another matter altogether.
Why does the heard treat these questions as one entity. Because their answer, no on both counts, is entirely centered on the Sox. The Yanks will not catch them becasue they cannot because the Sox are just too good to fold. now this is all preposterous in a number of respects. Firstly, with a 7 game gap and 70 to play, a team may be caught without "folding." Of course the gap used to be 14.5, which points to the fact that the Sox, far from being immune to the swoon, have already been doing their share of exactly that. Since the end of May, the Red Sox record is exactly the same as the Kansas City Royals record, and if that isn't folding what is. Of course the Sox could wellm fold and still avoid being caught by the Yankees.
Why does the Big Red Press assume their beloved Sox can't fold despite the abundant evidence to the contrary? Their pitching is apparently too good, too deep or both (the minor variations in the bleat of the sheep). A pitching staff with Tavaras as its fifth starter can hardly be called too deep, and one that also has Wakefield as its fourth starter can hardly be called too good. All the more so since the bullpen, though monstrous strong at the end, is almost as weak in the middle as the Yankees'. The too strong, too deep predicate ultimately rests on the notion that the Sox have not 1 but 3 bona fide Aces in their rotation, as well as the best closer in baseball. I won't quibble the last point, although Joe Nathan and K-Rod might be counterposed, but the 3 Ace thesis is just further preposterousness. Schilling was no ace before he went on the DL, and while the Nation-al spokesman are fond of saying he'll be rested and ready, a brief glance is enough to confirm he's also fatter than ever and not shape. Schilling hasn't been scaring good teams since 2004 and invoking him as an ace now is an exercise in nostalgia. As for Dice-K, he's just great, as long as the opposition isn't very good. He has had 2 weak starts against the Yankees, been clubbed by the Indians and the Tigers, chased by the White Sox, beated badly by the Blue Jays. He has not been very good when he doesn't get alot of runs. His record, 11-7, is good but not ace-worthy; his ERA, 4, is good in the AL but not Ace worthy. his record at stopping losing streaks is okay, but not Ace-worthy, and his propensity to blow up in the 4th or 5th inning is dangerous for Boston come playoff time. That leaves Beckett, a true ace this year, but alone in that regard. Tavaras, Shilling and Wakefield have all been very bad in their last 4-5 starts; Dice-K has been bad in 2 of his last 3. The slump Boston has experienced since the middle of June is directly tracable to a pitching rotation "too strong" and "too deep" to allow it to happen.
If Boston wins the East this year, it won't be because their pitching was too great or because they were so good as to be uncatchable. It will be because the Yankees have already blown 10-15 games they should have won, because the Yankees still only have three starters worhty of the name, because an already bad bullpen was destroyed by mismanagement, because Damon is hitting in the 230's etc. etc. We who have watched in agony as the Yankees sink into an unworthy decline can only stand amazed at the fact that they are a mere 7 games behind, and if we seek an explanation for this undeserved good fortune, the last place we will find it is in Boston's invincibility.
But then one should remember that the pundits report less on the games being played than on the sound of their own collective voice. That's what being a herd animal is all about.
posted by joe valente | 12:28 AM
5 Comments:
As for the Yankee press, I've been struck by the baby steps toward glastnost re: Torre in the last few weeks. Farnsworth has actually been the tipping point of sorts. Stephen Greenblatt once defined power as the ability to impose your fictions on others--noting that the more outrageous the fiction, the greater your power. Torre's attempt to impose the myth of Farnwsorth's effectiveness has priven too much for even the sycophantic NY press to swallow.
The quotations from Torre about Farnsworth that are posted in another comment section preceded another game in which he gave up an 8th inning run, this time in a tie game. The next day's papers contained phrases such as "Torre now seemed compelled to address the obvious" re: his continued use of Farnsworth, and, in the face of real questions on the matter, began to relent in his support for the big F. I aw two different iterations of that same phrase about Torre and his admission of the "obvious."
Some comments on the Edward Ramirez situation have also subtly called into question why Torre would have not used him for 2 weeks, only to demote him after a disastorous outing in which he was no worse than ever other Yankee pitcher that night. One article noted in passing that Torre "always prefers veteran relievers" with the clear implication that he does so even when his veterans suck.
Very slowly some of the pundits are finding coded ways to break what continues to be the biggest taboo in sports journalism: calling Joe Torre to account for his failure of imagination and tactical acumen.
The Yanks are in a stretch of bad teams plus the Blue Jays, a mediocre team. They're 8-3 in the last 11 and need to go 6-2 in the next 8 against Tampa, KC, and Baltimore.
While the Yanks play 4 against KC, Boston and Cleveland play 4. If the Yanks win the series, they should gain 1-2 games on one of those two key teams in the next week, leaving them 5 down in the loss with a lot of games to play. The question is what will happen when they start playing better teams again, although that doesn't really happen until Cleveland on Aug 10--they're schedule is helping them out, if only they'll keep winning series.
If they do what they should against bad teams, the stretch from Aug 16 - Sep 5 will determine the season. If they're in good position by Aug 16, say 3-4 games back in the loss--and that's a big "if" but completely possible given the schedule they play until then--they have a chance to control their fate against Boston and Seattle.
I can't tell whether it'll be easier to catch Boston or to get the wild card. Boston is looking so terrible. And with the wild card they have 2 teams to catch. And I hate Boston. So I'll be rooting for Cleveland to sweep them next week.
I love the idea of Torre's ineptitude being the biggest taboo in sports journalism. It certainly is in baseball journalism, which revolves around the NY-Boston blood feud. It seems like the one thing the chowderfucks like Tony Mazzerati, Peter Gammons et al, and the "sycophantic" NY press (calling John and Susan) seem to agree on, with a virtually cult-like avidity, is the genius of slow Joe.
As for the upcoming weeks, I believe the Yankees have a much better shot at the wild card than at the division, despite the gap being almost identical at this point. Boston has an easy schedule over the restof the season, well more than half of thier games coming against sub-500 teams. Cleveland spends the rest of the season fighting with the Tigers and Twins, as well as Boston and N.Y. The same holds true, mutatis mutanda, for the Twins. As the for the Mariners, I don't believe they can sustain contender status throughout the season, even though Ichiro is the one player I respect more than Derek Jeter. Their fate hangs on a rotation in which Jeff Weaver is not only a member but an important one. The A's and Rangers are good enough to giver them trouble, not to mention the angels, and the Yanks are only 5 back of them in the loss column right now. If you can't make up 5 on the Mariners with this much left, you don't belong in the playoffs.
I'd just as soon see the Sox help the Yankees here. I hate Boston too, but mainly because I hate Boston fans (with only a very few exceptions) and I hate boston fans because all they care about is beating the Yankees. As Yankee fans we can afford, with 26 WC's at our back, to rememember that it is baseball we are talking about here: is not about scoring sectarian points, it's not about how you play the game, it's about one thing and one thing only, winning it all. And the wild card gives them the best chance of doing that this year.
I can't get excited about the schedule given the Yankees ineptitude against bad teams this season, the last few games excepted. For me, the slim playoff hopes hinge on Wang's fingernail, which seems to be preventing him from being effective beyond the 6th inning--a major issue for a team with a subpar bullpen that had been relying on him to go 7-8 each outing. With Pettitte and Clemens each hovering at #3 quality starter status and Muussina and Igawa at would-be-out of-the-rotation on any other team status, the Yankees need to win nearly every game Wang starts for th rest of the year. He may have 12-13 more, assuming his finger allows even that. They must win 10 of those, which means in each of those wins they'll probably need 9 effective outs from the bullpen. a tall order to say the least. This untenable burden on a mediocre bullpen that already has to provide at least 9 outs for all other starters, excepting, occasionally, Andy, spells inevitable doom, I think.
Hughes will be welcome, no matter how he fares, as a replacement to Ughh-awa, but who knows what he can really do. Given the scare this year, I can't imagine they'll let him go deep in many games unless he's throwing a no-hitter.
At this point, for the sake of avoiding ridicule, we just need to pray they don't pull the trigger on some ridiculous trade, like going after Ty Wiggington...
Post a Comment
<< Home