Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Mike: The Yankees are dead

"I hate to say this folks. I hate to do this, but I do have to admit that right here on September 2nd, the Yankees are dead. It's over. It's over yeah...I have to admit that once the Yankees lost that game last Tuesday night, had I been on the air on Wednesday, I would have conceded that the Yankees string of playoff appearances, the Yankee string of American League dominance, the Yankee string, which began either...in '94 or '95 has now come to an end."


Peteski said...

Sad to hear Mike throwing in the towel for the season.
Not being able to watch the Yankees go "one and done" in the playoffs this year, I feel his pain.

The Jingle, he noticed, is OLD - funny he doesn't notice how old the line-up is (sans HGH).

Anonymous said...

This is a disgrace!!! WHO CARES ABOUT THE YANKEES!!! The mets are thick into a pennant race, and we have to hear the opening half hour about how Mike finally realizes the yanks are done. WE'VE KNOWN THIS FOR WEEKS MIKE!

How about your thoughts on a huge MET win yesterday? How about you reiterating how wrong you were about delgado and how he's the NL MVP? How about finally throwing some blame at Jeter and stop saying he's an all-star when he was an all-star only by default?

First Time, Long Time said...

Anon...I am a die hard Met fan but I will admit that the bigger story here is Mike burying the Yanks. He will at some point for a segment or two, talk about the Mets. And when he does talk about Delgado, he will say "everyone thought Delgado was done."

bigjf said...

Delgado is NOT the NL MVP, not even close. He's not the MVP of his own team (David Wright). And let's not make the Mets the toast of the town yet. They're still fighting off the Phillies (who have a better team, in my opinion, especially if Rollins plays like a beast in September). The Mets are without some key pieces, their youngsters are performing right now, but they had the biggest collapse ever last year, so let's not pretend like this is over yet.

As far as MVP: Utley, Hanley, Soto, even Sabathia makes a better case than Delgado if you think about it. I know he hasn't spent the whole season there and he won't win it, but who in the NL has been more valuable than Sabathia? I dare anyone to argue that. The Brewers would be a disaster this year without him.

TheNextBestThing1 said...

I mean i guess no one thinks that Albert Pujols is the hands down in MVP as much i dont like the guy...

Anonymous said...

Mike is still bringing up Bronson Arroyo. You KNEW he had to be right about something (even if it's hypothetical).

First Time, Long Time said...

bigjf...not to get too far off topic but as a Mets fan, I would vote for Delgado OVER Wright as MVP of the Mets everyday and twice on Sunday. Delgado has hit more clutch hits this season than Wright. Deep down in places no one likes to talk about, David Wright has KILLED the Mets in big spots this year. Just go check is stats with runners in scoring position and runners in scoring position with 2 outs. He has great numbers, but they are a bit deceiving. Delgado has carried this team.

bigjf said...

Pujols is a fair case, I guess. His numbers are likely inflated due to missing time, but he will end with 500 at-bats. Lance Berkman would also be a good case, but I feel like the MVP should go to a player on a "contending" team. I didn't think A-Rod should have won it that year Texas finished last. You're not that valuable if your team doesn't win. Granted, Houston and St. Louis have had outside chances at contention, but the Brewers have a solid Wild Card spot that is theirs to lose, and it is almost single-handedly because of the job Sabathia has done. The MVP shouldn't go to best stats, that's for the Hank Aaron and Cy Young awards. The MVP should go to who made the best contribution towards a winning (or at least contending) effort. Unfortunately, that's not quite how it goes in reality...

41 said...

Al Pujols is MVP. He's by far the best player in baseball, and got robbed of it in 2006 when he was on a contending team. I wish baseball would get behind this man like the NBA promotes their stars, but that's a whole nother blogpost.

Yanks being done is bigger than the Mets right now, but by mid September - October it will be 24/7 Mets.

bigjf said...

FTLT, I haven't followed the Mets like you have, so I'll concede that Delgado is probably in fact the MVP of the Mets (1.080 w/RISP, 2 out), but he isn't the MVP of the NL. I just don't see that.

One point that goes against that, if you put any value in the close and late stat, Delgado is .660 OPS there, Wright is .903 OPS. Another counter point, Reyes is 1.164 OPS w/RISP, 2 out. So Delgado isn't the only one carrying the team, based on that...

Anonymous said...

Pujols has had Rick Ankiel and Ryan Ludwick "protecting" him in the lineup most of the year. He sees as many pitches to hit as Bonds did circa 2002-05. The truly amazing thing about AP is his high-level consistency over the years. He's been a .330/.420/.620 guy since the day he put on an MLB uniform.

TRIVIA: Who did Pujols replace in the Cardinals' lineup his rookie year?

ANSWER: Bobby Bonilla.The Cards had signed Bobby Bo to play left field in 2001. He got hurt near the end of spring training. Pujols stepped in and has been in the lineup since.

Anonymous said...

Bigj: I was surprised by your comments, because they were so far off-base it was hilarious. We already saw how Wright is the one not even close to being mvp, not delgado, so lets move on. Chase Utley is just as overrated as Wright this year. Utley had ONE good month (April). He's batted under .260 every month after that.

Pujols is a monster, but his team probably won't even make the playoffs, and there is no way he has had as many big hits as Delgado. Delgado is carrying his team to a pennant. If the mets don't make the playoffs, then I don't give Delgado even an ounce of the MVP trophy, but right now he's the NL MVP.

And how tou can even say the phillies are a better team than the mets is puzzling considering the huge advantage the mets have in SP.

bigjf said...

Anon, my vote would be for Sabathia as the NL MVP, but as I said, Reyes has been just as big in big spots as Delgado. Utley had one month (July) where his OPS was under .800, the rest of the time it's been close to .900, and he's done it as a 2B. Comparatively, his "clutch" numbers aren't anything special, but you could do much worse.

The Mets have a good 3 in the rotation with Santana, Perez, and Pelfrey. The Phillies have Hamels and Moyer, but Myers, despite all his struggles this year, has shown flashes of brilliance. Blanton is in the same vein right now, but not counting that, they have the better bullen right now. Romero, Durbin, Lidge. Howard's numbers are down, but he's still a big time power threat. Rollins' numbers are also way down, but he still has the speed and is capable of having a big run down the stretch. Burrell's having a big year, Victorino is OK still has a lot of speed. Werth's numbers are comparable to Beltran's right now. I definitely wouldn't dismiss the Phillies, they would worry me if I was a Mets fan.

I'd be surprised if Delgado won the MVP.

wtsherman said...

Pujols is the MVP.

Leads majors in BA/OBP/SLG, IBB, OPS+ (192!), VORP, WARP-3, etc.

He is 3rd in NL in BB, Hits, TB, In shouting distance of HR, and the perception is that he carried what was to be a horrendous Cards club.

Probable Gold Glove and Batting Title.

His numbers are DEFLATED (not inflated) by his missed time and he gets pitched around more than anyone.


That said, I don't know if he'll win. He's clearly the best hitter in the NL. I could see it going to Wright if the Mets win or Utley if the Phils win, or Braun.

Sabathia just doesn't have enough starts. But I think he's top 10 in voting right now and has an outside shot if he wins the rest of his starts going 8-9 innings with 0-2 runs each time.

bigjf said...

wtsherman, it's hard for me to argue against Pujols. He's a Hank Aaron and Silver Slugger award winner for sure, maybe a Gold Glove as well. I'm sure he'll get some votes for MVP, he'll be in the running, but a lot of the time the writers unfortunately just vote for the name and don't look at the numbers. But to me the MVP should be the guy who contributed the most in the league to a contending or winning effort. That said, who in the NL has contributed more to a winning cause than Sabathia for the Brewers? Will he win? Probably not, because they'll say he hasn't had a full year in the NL. But like I said, he's almost single-handedly given the Brewers a Wild Card since coming over.

In 11 starts for the Brewers, CC is 9-0 with a 1.43 ERA, including 6 CG (which is almost unheard of), 85 strikeouts in 88 innings, only 18 walks, and a 0.99 WHIP, and that includes a 1-hitter, which the Brewers are still arguing should have been a no-hitter. Those numbers just can't be ignored. The Brewers are a talented team, but Sabathia made all the difference in their playoff hopes. Obviously, he still has to pitch for another month, but he might end up making an even stronger case.

I doubt he'll win it due to the change in leagues, but at this point I'd vote for him.

wtsherman said...


I agree Sabatthia has been treMENDous. Hard to recall a pitcher throwing so singularly well this decade.

I just disagree with your conception of the MVP. Roughly speaking, 1) You want the MVP to come from a literal playoff team. 2) I want the MVP to contribute the most value to a team that's not in the cellar. and 3) the actual voter's are all over the map in their criteria.

I don't truly understand VORP, but it purports to assess value over the long haul. Pujols has contributed more than anyone else in the process of getting from 0 wins to 90+ wins (the goal of every team) by getting on base with hits and walks, and by not getting out very much while doing so.

Pujols' case as always (and in this year particularly) isn't necessarily glamorous for some. But in terms of contributing value in the best ways quantifiable, he is El Hombre.

Sabathia, brilliant as he has been, has only played in 11 games! He has been central in solidifying their playoff prospects, but he contributed absolutely nothing to their being in the thick of the race thru the all-star break, and since then has only affected 20% of the outcome of Brewers' games. I think Braun is the MVP of that team.

bigjf said...

I get your point, but if success is all about starting pitching, then that's the case I make for Sabathia. The guy has been good for at least 9 more Brewers wins thus far (I don't know how they did in the 2 no decisions, but I'm sure he pitched well enough to win). Let's forget for a moment that the Brewers bullpen stinks and that CC pitched a bunch of complete games. Let's say that a run of the mill starting pitcher wins 4 or 5 games out of CC's 9 wins. Where would that put them today? 1.5 games ahead in the wild card? Pretty dire compared to 5.5 ahead.

We're not going to agree on this because we have different philosophy on what the criteria should be for the MVP. I feel it should go to a playoff team because a team like Texas in 2003 is plenty capable of losing with or without a player's contributions. Of course the Cardinals would be nowhere close to contention without Pujols. I don't dismiss VORP, but at this point Pujols' 4-5 at-bats per game are less likely to improve the Cardinals' playoff chances, whereas 5-6 more Sabathia starts could very well clinch a playoff berth for the Brewers. But again, the problem with these season awards is the criteria isn't always clear and becomes subject to opinion.

wtsherman said...

True that.

But, in your opinion, did Barry win 4 undeserved MVPs?

Before the Cardinal's five game skid and for most of the year they have been about as good as the Mets. What did Pujols do in said five game skid? 10-19 w/ 2 HR, 2B, 2 BB, 3 R, 4 RBI.

Now, in a sense, this proves your point - namely, that no matter how good a position player is, he cannot control the outcome of individual games, whereas a pitcher as dominant as Sabbathia has been can single-handedly do just that.

But, IMO, you can't penalize the Cardinals for playing in the NL Central in 2008 rather than the East.

My response to your advocacy of Sabbathia for MVP would be twofold. First, I totally agree that a dominant pitcher does contribute enough to merit MVP consideration and can certainly be an MVP. Second, said pitcher would have to be as good (or close as good) as Sabbathia has been as a Brewer, albeit for the whole season. I agree with your rough estimate of Sabbathia providing aproximately 5 wins above a replacement pitcher thus far, with the chance to augment that total in September by 2 or 3 more wins. However, I would suspect that Pujols has contributed 10+ wins thus far over a replacement player.

Bottom line: To me, it's as though Sabbathia is hitting .500/.650/.900 with 18 HR and 60 RBI in two months' work. i.e. playing at a higher level than Pujols, but not enough involement for the true year-long trophy.

I just like arguing this stuff (this year features a weird field), despite the fact that the award itself is inconsistently (if not arbitrarily) handed out year to year and thus, not as significant as it should be.

bigjf said...

It's definitely an interesting argument to have. But just to answer your question: Barry deserves 2 of the 4 MVPs he got with the Giants because they made the playoffs in 2002 and 2003. In retrospect, pitching around Barry those years contributed to a playoff berth. The other 2 with SF turned out to be a product of being pitched around on a team that ultimately went nowhere. I don't care if you bat 1.000, if your team didn't make the playoffs, then the only thing your performance served to do was keep fans interested. I feel not making the playoffs has to be considered a failed season, whether your first baseman is Pujols or Mientkiewicz. So I guess my view is it doesn't matter if Pujols is good for an extra 10 wins if your team doesn't make the playoffs. In a warped sense, all Pujols does this season (assuming the Cards don't make it) is hurt the team in draft position. In that regard, Sabathia's 5 win differential can be considered more important than Pujols' 10.

A-Rod, for example, had 47 homers in 2003 on a team that stunk. If I'm facing A-Rod on that team in 2003 and I got a 10-3 lead (3 solo shots off A-Rod), and I got A-Rod coming up again with the bases empty I could either walk him or serve up another. But I've got a huge lead so I foolishly decide I'm going to try to get him out, and sure enough he tags me again for his 4th of the game. Well, his stats look pretty damn good, but his team still lost the game. Yes, by my system A-Rod is penalized for being on a bad team (this wouldn't stop him from winning the Hank Aaron award), but wouldn't you say his MVP was more deserved in 2007, when he carried the Yankees on his back all the way to the playoffs?

Again I think writers often confuse the MVP with the Hank Aaron award, and perhaps the Cy Young is often dubbed the MVP for pitchers when it shouldn't be.

You don't want to "penalize" a player for being in a certain division, but that's just a drawback that I feel, in terms of the MVP, you just have to deal with. What if the Brewers were in the NL West with Sabathia? They'd have a comfortable lead in that division right now. It's a flawed, and even perhaps arbitrary system in terms of these season ending awards. There's only so many hypotheticals you can factor in, so I feel like you have to pretty much ignore the difference in divisions and just accept these are all major league players and teams, even though some of them could be beaten by AAA teams. I definitely don't take heavy stock in most of these awards, but my beef is a lot of the writers just look at stats and vote for the name, without having any kind of justification. They are given a ballot and they want to fill it out quickly and get it out of the way. Maybe they're good buddies with a certain player they cover all year, or maybe they carry bias against a certain player (in 2006, all the writers voted Jeter high in the MVP ballot, except for one guy who voted him 6th! Jeter lost to Morneau). In any case, it's always up for debate, which makes it fun, I suppose.