[OT] ALCS: Red Sox vs Yankees

Thought I'd start a new thread, so the "Cornell Fan Sightings" thread didn't get huge.

Let's-Go-Yan-Kees.

ClapClap ClapClapClap

Yanks in 6. MVP=Matsui

"I love New York, too. It's the Yankees I hate."

I saw it on a bumper sticker outside Fenway before a Yanks-Sox game in 1983.

Of course, I bought one.

JH

Since I can't allow a post like that to sit there alone, and since I don't make predictions out of fear of jinxing my team (I think I could jinx my team, but I don't believe in... that thing with the fat pitcher that was sold - go figure), I'm just gonna have to throw out a lame:

GO SOX!!!

See ya'll again after the series... if I make it all the way through.

LET'S GO RED SOX

Go STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES AS WRITTEN!!! (I have a reputation to uphold now.)

Failing that, Go Yankees!

For the record, he was actually pretty trim when he was sold. He didn't get fat until years later. Though the Bellyache heard around the world shows that he was on his way only a few years later.

Sox in 6.

LET'S GO RED SOX!

Where can I buy one of those "I love New York, too. It's the Yankees I hate." bumper stickers?

It's a can't lose situation. Either the Yankees are crushed or the Red Sox' fans are crushed. Who cares who wins? Let's just make it as painful as possible.

I'm right there with you, Greg - and I couldn't care less about baseball. This is great.

BTW - Stars are beating the Ducks 4-1. Is baseball season still going?

Spoken like a bitter Mets fan.
Sorta like watching a BU-BC tourney game, eh? The best you can hope for is 4 OTs and a bench clearing brawl.

Go Sox!!!

You mean as painful as watching your Mets is?

You'll survive this series...but the Sox won't.

GO YANKEES!!!

[Q]You'll survive this series...but the Sox won't.

GO YANKEES!!! [/Q]

And who won the game last night? It sure wasn't the Yankees....

GO SOX!

Dan '01 wrote:GO SOX!

You know who probably roots for the Sox? BU.

Screw BU. Red Sox, too. (Does that count as hockey content?)

Was at the game last night (painful as it was), and saw the perfect retort to your bumper sticker in red letters on a white T-shirt:

1918
Babe
Bucky
Buckner

Need we say more?

Go yanks!

Right...you can take comfort in that after the Yanks win the series.

One of the guys who got revenge on Volonnino wrote:

Where can I buy one of those "I love New York, too. It's the Yankees I hate." bumper stickers?

I've never seen one of those, but outside Fenway they do sell "I love New York, but I hate the Yankees" bumper stickers. The part that sucks is that you have to search through all of the "Jeter Swallows" and "Hey Yankee Fans, Yank This" t-shirts and other such crap.

(trying not to get too up or down about series until one team has 3 wins...)

I don't know if I'll make it out alive, but I'll be at Game Seven tonight in the Bronx. Putting aside all bias, this is probably the biggest baseball game that's ever taken place in my lifetime, and even if the Sox lose, it'll be worth being there (provided I make it back).

Only Red Sox fans think this is the biggest game ever. Sure, it's an important game, but how can it be the biggest game of one's lifetime when it's not even the World Series?

Are you saying that this game is actually bigger than Game 6 of the World Series against the Mets?? Or did Buckner just make that too painful a game for you to remember?

Don't get me wrong, I'll certainly be watching and routing hard for the Yankees....and if they lose I'll be upset (or if they win I'll be excited). But I think there is a definite perception of importance issue at play here.

Adam '01 wrote:

Only Red Sox fans think this is the biggest game ever. Sure, it's an important game, but how can it be the biggest game of one's lifetime when it's not even the World Series?

"Where's the fun in winning if you take it as a Constitutional right? Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Ticketmaster, only with better T-shirts."

pulled from an article on ESPN.com a couple days ago. Thats why this is a big game for the Sox and not one for the Yankees. The Yankees ALWAYS win and expect to. Sound like Adam is a typical, spoiled Yankees fan. Yes, I'm a Boston fan, if that's not obvious.

Awww, has the Red Sox nation sunk to the point of name calling? That's cute. Really it is. Sort of like the Red Sox run this year is admirable and cute. The bastard stepchildren finally get their day in the sun. The perennial losers are now in a position to win for once. But for all this "Cowboy Up" crap, the Sox are in the exact same position as the Yanks.....and the Yanks only had an "average" season.

Dan '01 wrote:

"Where's the fun in winning if you take it as a Constitutional right? Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Ticketmaster, only with better T-shirts."

pulled from an article on ESPN.com a couple days ago. Thats why this is a big game for the Sox and not one for the Yankees. The Yankees ALWAYS win and expect to. Sound like Adam is a typical, spoiled Yankees fan. Yes, I'm a Boston fan, if that's not obvious.

You know, it really doesn't make me incredibly angry, but the constant beatdown of Yankee fans in the last couple years by...well everyone in contact with the media is starting to stick in my craw. It may make a nice quote that rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Microsoft/ticketmaster/whatever, but I can guarantee you that in my life I've shed as much blood/sweat/tears/cheers as any Red Sox/Cubs fan. I guess the media's memory only goes back to 1996, and I'm sure there have been plenty of bandwagoners hop on board who only know the winning years (and are indeed probably spoiled), but I've been a Yankee fan tried and true since I can remember. And there were a lot of lean years...you know...back when the Yanks were looked at as just another team, and not a giant, easy target for the growing legions of Yankee-haters. I feel enourmously blessed by the recent success and to this day, I don't "expect" to win. I can rattle off a list of tremendously heartbreaking Yankee losses in my life, so they don't "ALWAYS" win. I love my team, I love the players who play for my team, and I love the tremendous heart that they've demonstrated for several years now. So piss off and let me be the fan I've always been.

A coworker in San Diego once gave me a bitter "Gee, it must be easy rooting for a winner." retort when I answered his question what my favorite team was. Well you know what? With all the Yankee hate, payroll excuses, and "holier than thou" schlock that gets thrown at me almost daily...I've found that it's actually pretty difficult.

I've come up with the analogy that being a Yankee fan today is somewhat similar to being an American in today's global society. Pretty much everyone hates you for some reason or another. They blame your success on wealth. Some extremists are willing to resort to violent behavior based solely on your affiliation. Some of your fellow "fans" embarrass you by their actions, beliefs, hubris, and treatment of "fans" of other "teams." A good number of us are outraged by our owner/president's actions. Other "teams" complain of unfair practices and that you always win. Any battles that are waged you want to win very badly, and when you don't the rest of the world is ready to pile on and get in your face about it.

Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for America. Go Yanks.

Rich H '96 wrote:

Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for America. Go Yanks.

George Steinbrenner=America?

Lord, let's hope not.

Al DeFlorio wrote:

George Steinbrenner=America?

Lord, let's hope not.

If you read my post again, you'll see my analogy was actually:

George Steinbrenner = George W. Bush
Yankees = America

Unfortunately, Yankee fans don't get to vote, and there are no term limits.



Post Edited (10-16-03 12:22)

Rich beat me to it. What he said



Post Edited (10-16-03 12:22)

[q]Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for America. [/q]

Yanqui go home!

JH

But Steinbrenner doesn't complain about high taxes i.e. the luxury tax.

And does that make the Cubs = Al Gore because they couldn't win at home when it mattered most?

I agree 100% with Rich. Let me also add a few more points:

I always laugh at the "Yeah, but the Yankees payroll is so high and that's why they win" line.

How then do you explain teams like Texas and even Baltimore? Sure, the Yankees have a lot of money, but they are also smart with it. They don't go and blow it all on one player (A-Rod) and forget about something as important as starting pitching.

And how can we BLAME the Yanks for having a lot of money?? Facts are facts. New York is the largest media market in the world. The Yankees have more fans than any other sports franchise in the history of the world (fuck off, Manchester United). OF COURSE they have more money than anyone...but it's not their FAULT. In fact, if Robin Hood was a baseball fan, I'm betting he would support the Pinstripes. Think of all the inherent good the Yanks have done for the game of baseball. If this series was Oakland V. Minnesota, would anyone (outside of those cities) even care?

Another point that is lost here is how many different Yankees teams have done well in the recent run of glory. The 1996 Yanks were so much different from the 1999 Yanks and both were very different from the 2003 Yanks. It's not like the same exact team of giants is taking the field every year. Remind me again, how many left fielders have there been since '96?

I have no idea who is going to win tonight, but I'm sure it will be an entertaining game. It always is with the Yankees and that's why I love baseball.

So, I am a die-hard Red Sox fan, brought up in the Boston area and all. So, my logic for why the is the "Biggest Game Ever!" is that the Boston media is psychotic. They blow everything out of proportion, turn on the teams in a heartbeat (hmmm, interesting based on the Lynah Faithful definition). Fotunately and unfortunately they have short memories. I think the Sox finally have a GM and owners who will be making good decisions as the Yankees have been for a while (as Adam pointed out). And, yeah, we're damn excited here, with good reason. I'm just damn happy to be living in Boston for this, it's been incredible so far.... Let's go Sox!!! And it will be one doozy of a game tonight. Well, soon gotta head down to Jillian's for the game....

-J

Adam.. You had me right up until Robin Hood.... HUH?

If Robin Hood lived in the states, and for some bizarre reason liked Baseball, he would likely cheer for whichever team was on the town he lived in.

And on a totally unrelated note: GO SOX!!

Also.. To play devil's advocate on the importance of this game:

1- It is the first 7th game ever in the history of the most bitter rivalry in professional sports*.

2- This is likely the first time ever two pitchers with a combined 9 Cy Youngs face each other in a single elimination game.

3- If the sox win they have the best chance to win a WS in almost a generation. This is clearly the most important game for Sox-Nation since 1986.

- Felix

* Harvard / Cornell is not professional sports. Thank god.

That the Yankees of 2003 are not the Yankees of 1999 who were not the Yankees of 1996 doesn't help your argument. When the Yankees need to fill a hole, the outbid everyone else for the free agents. They even cut guys loose who still have a few years left, like Tino, because they get a younger, better guy to replace them.

The question isn't whether we should blame the Yankees for having money but whether all of baseball would be better with more revenue sharing. I think Robin Hood would watch the NFL.

Rich H '96 wrote:

Al DeFlorio wrote:

George Steinbrenner=America?

Lord, let's hope not.

If you read my post again, you'll see my analogy was actually:

George Steinbrenner = George W. Bush
Yankees = America

Unfortunately, Yankee fans don't get to vote, and there are no term limits.

Actually, I read your post very carefully, but, as you pointed out in your last sentence above, the analogy simply doesn't work.

We are Americans, so we really have no choice but to "root" for our country--even when it's led by someone we may loathe. Steinbrenner "owns" the Yankees, and profits from them. We all can make the choice to root against him--and his Yankees. When the Yankees someday gain an owner who isn't loathsome, we can then all choose to root for them again.



Post Edited (10-16-03 17:50)

Sure, baseball would be better with more revenue sharing if you believe in boring games and a weakened sport overall.

If more revenue sharing occured, teams would likely regress toward the mean. The Brewers would get better and the Yankees would get worse. Do I want teams to be more evenly matched? No; not if it means they will be playing at some AA farm league level. Boring and bland.

The sport faces enough external challenges from the overhyped NBA to the solid NFL. And yes, even increasing pressure from the NHL. Why does it need to canibalize itself?

Baseball needs heros and dynasties. Baseball needs big market teams for people to hate. Baseball needs small market teams for people to cheer for when the chips are down. This is what makes baseball great. The ability to take a random Wednesday afternoon in July off from work, go to the ballpark, and scream your lungs out against those Damn Yankees or those Cursed Red Sox.

Tell me, would the above seem as enticing if the Brewers were coming to town in first place?

Hmm, big market fans don't like revenue sharing and just happen to have well thought out theories to explain it? Wow.

Guess who had World Series painted on their decrepit old wreck of a field?

Go Marlins .

Sure, baseball would be better with more revenue sharing if you believe in boring games and a weakened sport overall.

Yeah, cause the NFL has no appeal

You don't give a single reason as to why the games would be boring and the sport weakened. Even with equal payrolls (which I'm not suggesting) there is no evidence that all teams are going to be tightly clustered around .500. Maybe over a decade things would even out but in any season, someone is going to be good. As someone mentioned earlier, GMs can make a huge difference. And the level of play would not be AA because the best players would still rise to the majors. That's like saying the NFL has degraded to the college level.

And the NFL doesn't seem to be suffering a ratings slump without a dynasty in the last decade.

And yeah, if the Brewers were in first and my team in second, it would be exciting. If the Yankees come to town and I live in Detroit, would I bother going? No.

The NFL has problems in my mind, but it's the way the cap works and the amount of player movement that's the issue, not the revenue sharing. The rules make it very difficult to maintain a good team - you can usually only keep a great squad together for a couple of years. this is a problem for me because it doesn't reward player development and good draft picks.

Baseball definitely needs more revenue sharing (I'm wearing a Yankee jersey right now). But whatever else you want to say about George, he wants to win badly and is willing to spend lavishly to get there. This isn't a bug, it's a feature. The other option under the current rules is to have him pocket $100 mil a year and only spend $80. As a Yankee fan taht would be far worse...

The Giambi and Mussina deals in the last few years have helped people forget that the foundation of the recent Yankee run has NOT been free agency and buying players. In fact, a few games ago the Yankees had home grown players at six of nine positions in the lineup (Posada, Johnson, Soriano, Jeter, Rivera, Williams) plus a home grown player on the mound (Pettite). The only important free agent in the '96-'99 period was Mike Stanton. The team was built on a foundation of home grown players. Money came in to play because the Yankees could afford to keep all of these guys, not lose them to free agency. Is it fair to fault them for that? (Yes, there were a couple of money based trades involved - Knoblauch, Nelson and Martinez in particular).

Al DeFlorio wrote:

Actually, I read your post very carefully, but, as you pointed out in your last sentence above, the analogy simply doesn't work.

We are Americans, so we really have no choice but to "root" for our country--even when it's led by someone we may loathe. Steinbrenner "owns" the Yankees, and profits from them. We all can make the choice to root against him--and his Yankees. When the Yankees someday gain an owner who isn't loathsome, we can then all choose to root for them again.

Well Al, I respect your right to reject my analogy, but I really don't think anyone should take it very literally. ("oh yeah? Then who is Colin Powell in your analogy, Rich? And Jaques Chirac or Saddam?" I made it to give Yankee-haters a different perspective. I've encountered so many people who have crossed the line from simply disliking this team to actually calling them "evil," and from that wondering how anyone could root for something so evil. Well, for perspective, I think we can all relate to that situation as Americans. To respond to your comments, my Yankee fandom is so deep, that I really have no choice but to root for them...I can't help it. So for me, the analogy holds.

To another topic, a big proponent of an intelligent revenue-sharing plan. I can't tell you how jealous I, as an MLB fan, am of the NFL plan. However, the plan must force the teams receiving cash to use it to invest in their teams, not to gold-line Carl Polhad's pool at his mansion.

Bill '94 wrote:
That the Yankees of 2003 are not the Yankees of 1999 who were not the Yankees of 1996 doesn't help your argument. When the Yankees need to fill a hole, the outbid everyone else for the free agents. They even cut guys loose who still have a few years left, like Tino, because they get a younger, better guy to replace them.

Sorry, but the Red Sox play this game too. When their bullpen was in shambles in June, Epstein began a complete overhaul in mid-season. When Jose Awfulman was their only option at 2B, they cut him free and plugged the hole with Todd Walker. They did the same with Johnny Damon. Yankee GM Brian Cashman faced the Wrath of George for losing both Ortiz and Sauerbeck in the past year. In recent years, the Sox outbid a certain team in the Bronx for Pedro, Manny, and Ortiz. They also (reportedly) offered more money to both Giambi and Mussina. They tried to lure Bernie Williams with more money, but he decided to stay put with a "hometown discount." Boston was desperately trying to sign Contreras to a similar contract the Yanks eventually got him at, but failed when the Yankee reputation in Latin America won out. And Lucchino calls the Yankees an "Evil Empire" when his team is trying to do the exact same thing?? It's really the Rivalry that drives both teams' Free Agent pursuits, and no other division has that 2-team competition. Watch all the Free Agent rumors. If one of the 2 is interested, the other comes into play just to try to block it. Other teams know that and exploit it in negotiations "Hey Cashman...Star Player Y is available, but I'm thinking of accepting Epstein's offer." In a sense, the Red Sox should be as much to blame for the payroll disparity crisis as the Yankees. But the Sox are lovable losers, so the media just installs a double-standard against the Yankees instead.

As far as the amazing ALCS...Wow. Sox players were mouthing off big at the end of the regular season (which is interesting coming from a team that finished 6 games back in 2nd place) so I have a lot of material I could use to rub in....but I have more respect for this version of the Sox now. Man, what a tough team. Glad to see that the Sox finally realized that it's not just having the superstars...it's who you surround them with that really counts. It's a fun team, and they gave the citizen's of Red Sox Nation one great ride. I know it's painful, and some of the fans might not come back to this thread. But I'm glad we were able to share some good series banter.

As a Yankee fan, this feels like the 2003 ECAC Final. As a Sox fan, this must feel like the 2002 ECAC Final.

It feels worse than the 2002 ECAC final; I was only a freshman at that point, but nevertheless, it had only been five years since Cornell won the ECACs anyhow.

And 5 years for a Sox fan is so unbelievably short.

Alright, so as a frustrated Red Sox fan (yet again), doesn't hockey season start soon?

Well, there you have it....there's the end of the baseball season for me. I was so excited for this year's postseason...the thought of a Cubs / Red Sox WS was so cool. Now, I don't give a flying crap about it. Spring training anyone? I was cheering for the Red Sox, just for the fact that we might have something a bit different this year. I can pretty much guarantee I won't watch a single game of this year's world series (of course, the fact that I live in Europe and will not be around a TV next week anyway could have something to do with it).

One of my coworkers suggested the Cubs and Sox should play a consolation game.....that would REALLY get some good ratings....

LOL. I'd even support that idea Dan. That would be entertaining.

Although I imagine that Grady Little will have to skip the consolation game so that he can make it to his job interviews on time.

Well, that was about as painful as it gets. Moreso than the Frozen Four, and I would say moreso than the 2002 ECAC's, if only because at Lake Placid I could just go out to the bars after the game and last night I had to drive home to Boston to go to work this morning...

Anyway, as awful as it was being in that stadium with all of those feelings-of-entitlement degenerates last night (don't get me wrong - there are plenty of Yankee fans that are great baseball fans and make the games enjoyable, but they were grossly outnumbered last night), and as much as I want to strangle Grady Little this morning for leaving Pedro and his pitch count in to start the 8th inning, I've gotta give it to the Yankees for coming back. Great game - Instant Classic if there ever was one.

And the buildup as "the greatest game of my life" effect was obviously because of the magnitude of the rivalry, the fact that it was a Game 7, the pitching match-up, and the events of Game 3, not because of the perceived woe-is-me attitude of Red Sox Nation. Get over yourself.

Thank god it's hockey season.

It wasn't the pitch count at the start of the eighth that should have triggered the move to the pen, it was the events of the 7th and 8th leading up to Matsui's at bat. At that point, the Yankees had begun hitting the ball solidly, stretching back to the end of the 7th, showing that despite Pedro hitting 93 or 94 mph, somehow he wasn't fooling them anymore.

I'm sympathetic to Grady's desire to keep his best pitcher in the game, given the lack of trust he has for the bullpen, but once Pedro got into trouble, the safer move would have been to go to Embree, particularly given how well he pitched the other day.

Last year's WS was "different", right?

CUlater '89 wrote:

It wasn't the pitch count at the start of the eighth that should have triggered the move to the pen, it was the events of the 7th and 8th leading up to Matsui's at bat. At that point, the Yankees had begun hitting the ball solidly, stretching back to the end of the 7th, showing that despite Pedro hitting 93 or 94 mph, somehow he wasn't fooling them anymore.

I'm sympathetic to Grady's desire to keep his best pitcher in the game, given the lack of trust he has for the bullpen, but once Pedro got into trouble, the safer move would have been to go to Embree, particularly given how well he pitched the other day.

Actually, Pedro throwing at 94 was a sign itself. He wasn't getting the movement he wanted, so he tried to replace it with gas.

This was an amazing pair of League Championship Series. Most amazing was that BOTH game 6's and BOTH game 7's were won by the team that had the worse of the pitching matchup. (Prior v. Pavano; Wood v. Redman; Pettitte v. Burkett; you know who v. you know who). And in three of those games, the winning team lost because the manager didn't trust his bullpen and tried to squeeze an extra inning out of a starter pitching on short rest. (Do you think Dusty Baker regrets letting Prior throw 116 pitches in game 2 after getting an early 11-0 lead? Or that he should have learned his lesson in game 6 before Wood blew up in game 7?)

I empathize, Sully, et al. Joy from watching the Yankees win is the brave face I put up after watching the Pirates lose year after year. And the 1992 NLCS was the single most painful sports-related thing I have ever gone through. (There is probably still a hole in an apartment wall on Blair Street from when Sid slid.)

You have a very good team in Boston, and are probably only a couple of role players (not superstars, role players) from being completely unstoppable.

I wasn't trying to address the "Yankees always triumphing over the Sox" issue because Boston is not a small market team. They can try to compete with Yankees in the free agency market - mainly because they now have their own cable channel and they jacked ticket prices. And you're right that between the two teams they do cause salaries to skyrocket. But the Yankees will always have the deeper pockets. My sympathy is for the true small market teams that end up being a secondary farm system for the large market teams. Keith correctly reminds me of how many Yankees in the 1990s were brought up through the farm system so at least they aren't the store bought 1997 Marlins but my point is that a) the Yankees could afford to keep increasing their salaries and b) they plugged the holes through free agency. Teams like Montreal can't do that. And with the explosion of cable TV money, they probably never will.

big red apple wrote:
I empathize, Sully, et al. Joy from watching the Yankees win is the brave face I put up after watching the Pirates lose year after year. And the 1992 NLCS was the single most painful sports-related thing I have ever gone through. (There is probably still a hole in an apartment wall on Blair Street from when Sid slid.)

You have a very good team in Boston, and are probably only a couple of role players (not superstars, role players) from being completely unstoppable.

Thanks. Don't take this personally, but that doesn't make me feel better - not by a long shot - even though it should. A year or two or five from now I'll be able to tell people that I was at one of the best LCS games ever, but now I just don't see it that way.

As for the Sox, they have plenty of good role players - what they need is another starter or two and a few more reliable options in the 'pen. Embree-Timlin-Williamson looked great at the back end in the playoffs, but if they could find some better middle-men (and a new manager), that alone would make them a much better team next year.

Argh. I hate that I'm thinking about next year.

I don't think they need a new manager. Look what Little had to work with. He did one hell of a job this year with a bunch on nobodies. While I completely disagree with him leaving Pedro in last night, I think he's probably the best manager Boston has had in years. I may be in the minority as far as Sox fans go, but I'm a Grady Little fan.

They do need better pitching next year though. Pedro is getting old, and Wakefield, while he's a great pitcher, you just can't rely on the knuckleball to get you 6 innings a start. Oh yeah, the should send Kim packing, he just sucks.

You know what ruined the Sox? It was the SI (Sports Illustrated) curse. Pedro was on the cover last week, so it was his fault, not Little's. Forget the Curse of the Bambino bs.

Pedro is only 31, so he's not even old by baseball standards. He can be a little bit fragile but he should be fine for several years to come. But you'd like someone better than Burkett in the rotation come October. As much as Wakefield killed the Yankees in Games 1 and 4 (several guys looked helpless against him), you'd probably like to upgrade the #3 hole too.

Given the number of impending free agents, the Sox may look very different next year. We'll see. I hope they can retain Nomar and Varitek and the other guys that I can't remember at the moment.

It's clear that Pedro has lost some of his stuff this year and he's not built (like Clemens) to be a starter forever.

Pedro's contract runs out after 2004, I believe. I'd like to see the Yanks sign him as a closer; an heir apparent to Rivera, who can work in a set up roll until Rivera retires.

I'll respectfully disagree. If Little let Timlin or Embree (both of whom had been solid lately) start the 8th inning, Boston would be preparing to host the Marlins tomorrow night. It's Little's job, for god's sake, to "manage" his players, not let them be stubborn and hurt the team. If the Sox had won last night, maybe he'd let them make the WS Game 1 lineup all by themselves , or maybe he'd let Nomar decide when to make a pitching change, or......

A new manager, one pitcher, and one more bat (maybe) makes this team one of the favorites for next year. Ugh. Next year.

(p.s. I used to live in Worcester, Mass., now just north of Cincinnatti, so obviously my two teams are the Red Sox and Reds. So I suppose if I had to pick ONE Yankee to hit that home run, it would have been Boone. I remember when he did the same in a meaningless game in Cincy early in the summer. Who would have thought.....)

Wouldn't mind seeing that either, but if he knew that was going to be his role going in, I think his ego would make him take less money to sign somewhere as a starter.

I am so tired of hearing all day about how it's all Little's fault. While I do believe that maybe he should have taken Pedro out, you have to look at all the angles.
1) It is not a certainty that the Red Sox would have won had the relievers come in. True, they had been pretty much lights-out, but that doesn't mean the Yankees wouldn't have rallied against them either. If that had happened, Little would be castigated for not staying with Pedro I'm sure.
2) You have to remember how many times Pedro had been taken out of games earlier in the season only to take a shower and find out his bullpen had blown his win. Grady had been "saving" Pedro's arm all season for this moment. Why would he take him out? Pedro at his worst is still better than a lot at their best. Many managers, when faced with a heat-of-the-moment decision, will stick with his "sure" thing. Torre has done it before and lost. Doesn't make him a bad manager. He took a gamble and lost. Get over it.
3) The Red Sox had many opportunities to put the game out of reach. Remember when Mussina came in in the fourth inning with first and third and no outs? They could have blown it wide open. I guess you should credit Torre for that managerial decision.

Bottom line is they had seven chances to win four games. They didn't and the better team won. It makes no more sense to blame the whole thing on Grady than it does to blame the Cubs' loss on the fan. Please. Give proper credit where it is due and accept defeat in grace.


Since we're so hot to make accusations, why hasn't anybody been blaming Schafer for being out-coached in the Final Four? I'm sure he could have done things differently. Ooops, I forgot, that was the ref's fault.




Post Edited (10-17-03 17:45)

Do you believe for an instant that Pedro would be willing to be a setup man? That's at least three steps down on the ladder of pitching hierarchy. Besides, as great as Mo is, a great starting pitcher is overall more valuable. That's why they make bigger money in general. Notice that John Smoltz thinks that he can best help the Braves by moving back into the rotation next year and this after a stellar year as a closer. I think he's right.

I have to agree with Erica and disagree with you Avash. There's no guarantee that the Red Sox win if Timlin or Embree starts the inning. Or even if one of them came on to pitch to Matsui or Posada. And all of this discussion would be moot if the pitch to Posada had been an inch in either direction on the bat- then he either flies out to Damon or Garciaparra/Walker. If that happens, he may well get out of the inning.

Little is in a tough spot because the Yankees managed to win. They could have won against the relievers or Pedro could have made the pitch to get Matsui or Pedro. I like to believe (in my less rational moments) that the Red Sox would've lost whatever Little did. Because that's what always happens.

As for next year, the Red Sox most certainly do not need another bat (assuming they keep their current players). After all, the lineup scored 900+ runs and set records for sluggins percentage and extra base hits. They do need a deeper rotation and probably still a better bullpen. And a better slogan and haircuts

I fully expect the Sox to be one of the best teams in the AL in 2004 (they were #2 IMO this year), giving the Yankees a run for their money.

Erica wrote:

I am so tired of hearing all day about how it's all Little's fault. While I do believe that maybe he should have taken Pedro out, you have to look at all the angles.
1) It is not a certainty that the Red Sox would have won had the relievers come in. True, they had been pretty much lights-out, but that doesn't mean the Yankees wouldn't have rallied against them either. If that had happened, Little would be castigated for not staying with Pedro I'm sure. [/q]
Well the point isn't to make all decisions that work. It is to make decisions that give you the best chance of winning. By the 8th inning - and there were signs in the 7th - Pedro was done. His history screams "100 pitch pitcher," and Little spent the whole season respecting that only to forget it at the worst possible time.

[q]2) You have to remember how many times Pedro had been taken out of games earlier in the season only to take a shower and find out his bullpen had blown his win. Grady had been "saving" Pedro's arm all season for this moment. Why would he take him out? Pedro at his worst is still better than a lot at their best. Many managers, when faced with a heat-of-the-moment decision, will stick with his "sure" thing. Torre has done it before and lost. Doesn't make him a bad manager. He took a gamble and lost. Get over it.[/q]
The bullpen at the end of the year isn't all that much like the bullpen was in June. Little didn't save Pedro's arm for this moment, he saved Pedro's arm because on a game to game basis he is greatgreatgreatgreat[100th pitch]horrible. Only two people in the entire world thought Pedro should pitch the eigth - especially after the Jeter and Williams at-bats - Little and Pedro. They were wrong.

[q]3) The Red Sox had many opportunities to put the game out of reach. Remember when Mussina came in in the fourth inning with first and third and no outs? They could have blown it wide open. I guess you should credit Torre for that managerial decision. [/q]
You credit Mussina for getting the outs, but yes, absolutely you credit Torre for the managerial decision. He walked out to the mound and asked for the ball from a first ballot hall of famer in what might have been his last game in the 4th inning of Game 7 of the ALCS. Why? Because he just didn't have it yesterday. That is GREAT managing, whether or not Mussina comes through for him.

[q]Bottom line is they had seven chances to win four games. They didn't and the better team won.[/q]
I'm a Yankee fan, and I don't think this is true. You'll see next year.

Keith K '93 wrote:

Do you believe for an instant that Pedro would be willing to be a setup man? That's at least three steps down on the ladder of pitching hierarchy. Besides, as great as Mo is, a great starting pitcher is overall more valuable. That's why they make bigger money in general. Notice that John Smoltz thinks that he can best help the Braves by moving back into the rotation next year and this after a stellar year as a closer. I think he's right.

Smoltz is wrong. He was moved to the pen because he stopped being all that effective on a 7-innings-at-a-time basis. He should take the Eckersley route to the Hall of Fame that the Braves are offering him.

And Pedro is still one of the five best starting pitchers in baseball, even if he can't throw complete games. (How many pitchers do these days?) Thinking that he should be a Yankee setup man may well be the most insulting suggestions I have ever heard.

big red apple wrote:
[Everything he said.]

Bravo. Well said--and absolutely right--on all counts.



Post Edited (10-17-03 18:31)

Erica wrote:
Bottom line is they had seven chances to win four games. They didn't and the better team won.

in this case, "better" is defined as having 1 1/2 times the payroll?

There are many Yankee fans that I like and respect; I'm friends with many of them. However....

I truly am sorry to say something like this, but you're the kind that makes me angry, the type that refuses to realize that New York didn't win last night because of their mystique or their aura or whatever the hell you people call it, but because Boston's manager made an unwise and truly idiotic decision (Pedro, can you throw him to the ground as well?). And I'm sick of hearing this "Oh well who's to say that New York wouldn't have rallied against Timlin or Embree?" Please. Timlin starts the 8th, and the game is over, and if you'd prefer not to admit it, fine, but you know it's true.

I suppose none of this matters anymore, and so this'll be the last time I post about this game (unless provoked ). After all, Yankee fans, your team is in the World Series....yet again (though Mariano's behavior last night was as if it were his first time). No need to go around saying things like "We deserved it" and "The better team won." They're cliches, not necessarily true, and they make lots of other Yankee fans look bad.

As for your analogy to the Frozen Four, Erica, it WAS the ref's fault
(kidding, of course...).

Janos wrote:
in this case, "better" is defined as having 1 1/2 times the payroll?

Or that the Sox had 2x the payroll of the A's? Oh wait, that must be different.

Edit: I actually got curious. Yes, the published "payrolls" of the Sox and Yanks are well known. But take into account that there are players on both team's payrolls that aren't on the postseason rosters or even on the teams anymore (Hitchcock and Mondesi for example). Using the USAToday 2003 salary database (link below) I totalled the raw salaries for the 25-man rosters of the Yanks and Sox in the ALCS. Certainly, some money is being handled by other teams, and backloaded contracts skew the "avg. contract value" for some of the higher-priced players, but for raw 2003 salaries, I came up with the following (using the league minimum of $300,000 when no salary info was available (Arroyo, McCarty for BOS and Juan Rivera, Almonte for NYY):

NY Yankess 25-man ALCS roster: $127.6 Mill.
Bos Red Sox 25-man ALCS roster: $102.2 Mill.
[asp.usatoday.com]

A 25% difference. Significant, but not enough for Boston fans to claim poverty. And as everyone said after Oakland GM Billy Beane surprisingly played the "salary card" after the ALDS, it's not the money that plays the game.

Expect the overalll Yankee payroll to drop significantly in 2004 (unless George can't resist Vlad), as they'll drop the contracts of Clemens, Hitchcock, Mondesi, and possibly Wells or Pettitte. And if the Sox are looking to add an extra arm as well as bringing back Walker AND worrying about the contracts of Nomar, Varitek, Pedro, and Lowe who will all be in the last year of their contracts in 2004, I don't see the Sox payroll staying where it is.
Pretty good analysis of the Sox situation here: [www.sportspages.com]



Post Edited (10-17-03 23:45)

Avash '05 wrote:(Pedro, can you throw him to the ground as well?).[/q]
The way Little came trucking out of the dugout after the Williams single, I was positive that that this was about to happen.

[q]And I'm sick of hearing this "Oh well who's to say that New York wouldn't have rallied against Timlin or Embree?" Please. Timlin starts the 8th, and the game is over, and if you'd prefer not to admit it, fine, but you know it's true.[/q]
That isn't very good sportsmanship either, Avash. The Sox would have been better off, but the success of the Boston bullpen against the Yankees was shocking because they were pitching above their heads all series. It was a bad decision by Little, but he wasn't about to bring in Gagne or the ghost of Hoyt Wilhelm.

Why does everyone insist on playing the salary card? I am really sick of hearing about this. Yes, the Yankees have more money to spend than every other team, but if those teams had the means, I find it hard to believe that they would not increase their payrolls. Why should the Yankees be punished for being successful? Also, as was mentioned earlier, simply spending a lot does not ensure vicotry (see Rangers, Orioles, Dodgers, etc.) The Braves spend a lot of money and have been extremely successful over the past decade or so but you don't hear people complaining about them because they routinely fail in the postseason. If you look at other leagues, the Mavericks spend loads and loads of money and they haven't won anything. The NY Rangers spend a lot and they haven't won in quite a few years. The bottom line is that while the Yankees spend a fortune, they also spend it wisely (well, more often than not) and nobody would care if they weren't extremely successful over the past few years.

As far as Sox fans go, it is definitely an inferiority complex. How else do you explain Bostonians chanting "Yankees Suck" at the Patriots Superbowl celebration? New Yorkers didn't do that when the Giants won the Superbowl.

I agree by and large with the assessment of Grady's moves, or lack thereof. There are no sure things but given their recent performance, you would think that Embree and Timlen gave them a better chance to win than a tiring Pedro. Where was Williamson in extra innings?

This "better team" thing always fascinates me. By definition, the better team won. It's as simple as recognizing that when the chips were down, the Yankees performed better.

In the end, Rivera was magnificent for 3 innings, a distance he had not gone in several years, and Boone jumped all over Wakefield's "mistake". Doesn't that tell you that the Yankees were the better team on that night? And isn't that what counts? No game is ever replayed, last year's Super Bowl, for example, just because the underdog pulled an upset, so the only tangible measure we ever have of who's better is what actually took place?

I've been a Yankee fan all my life and if the Marlins pull an upset this series, I'll tip my hat to them and acknowledge that they were the better team...perhaps not on paper but we all know where the games AREN'T played.

I'd say the "better team" is by definition the team with better winning percentage (in situations like this where teams face like competition). There is definitely such a thing as an upset. Sacred Heart was not a "better team" than Cornell -- they just were better (luckier, whatever) when it counted.

The Marlins are interesting, though -- best record in MLB after McKeon, and arguably that was such a big shift that for them maybe it's the only timeframe that should be considered.

I really think the whole criticism of Little is ridiculous. If he had lifted Pedro and Embree had been shelled, then the cry babies would be screaming for him to be fired over that. Sport has uncertainty. Get over it.

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

I really think the whole criticism of Little is ridiculous. If he had lifted Pedro and Embree had been shelled, then the cry babies would be screaming for him to be fired over that. Sport has uncertainty. Get over it.

But just because "cry babies" are saying it, does it make it wrong? Even an idiot can be right. Doesn't make them smart, just right. The same thing applies to managing. You can make a bad decision that works out or a good one that doesn't. This was a bad one that didn't.
As I was watching the game I was wondering why Grady Little didn't pull Pedro the entire time. Pedro is at this point a 100 pitch pitcher. Its been well documented. He was obviously laboring and the yankees were getting good contact on him. Do the Red Sox win if they take out Pedro? Nobody knows. But the odds were certainly more favorable taking him out, then leaving him in.

Here is some in depth analysis:

[premium.baseballprospectus.com]

As for the world series, even though I am a yankee fan, I would love to see McKeon win BUT as a baseball fan, I can't stomach the thought of Loria winning a championship.

As a baseball fan, I can't stand to see the Yankees win #5 in 8 years... 6 AL titles in 8 years is disgusting enough. Just personal opinion.

As for Little, I think Rob said it very well. This isn't just 20/20 hindsight. I was watching the game with two other people pulling for the Sox, and we all wanted him out, as soon as Jeter hit that double (if not before). True, you can do a bad thing that works out (Pedro could have gotten ot of it), or a good thing that doesn't (the bullpen coulda crashed).

But think about the situation. Your star starter just barely got out of a jam the last inning, he just let up 3 straight hits and didn't look good doing it, and he's pitched around 120 pitches. It's time, it's just time. ESPECIALLY with a bull pen that has a 1.33 ERA (I think - not sure if that was for the playoffs or the series). The manager has to be strong enough to stand up to an all-star who says he can do it. Of course a guy like Pedro will want to stay in, but the prudent move is to say "you did a great job, but you're tired, take a seat."

And for the record... Let's Go Mets .

Some comic relief - the New York Post printed an editorial on Friday bemoaning the Yankees' supposed Game 7 loss.

[www.thesmokinggun.com]

Greg Berge '85 wrote:
I really think the whole criticism of Little is ridiculous. If he had lifted Pedro and Embree had been shelled, then the cry babies would be screaming for him to be fired over that. Sport has uncertainty. Get over it.

As someone who sat at that game and listened to both Red Sox fans AND Yankees fans question Pedro coming out for the eigth inning (and hearing Yankees fans chant "leave him in!", and getting voicemails from people on both sides throughout the inning, I have to vehemently (yes, vehemently ) disagree with this.

This is not your token 20/20 hindsight "he should have done this differently" decision. For the entire playoffs, the successful formula was starter for seven innings, Embree/Timlin for the 8th, Williamson for the 9th. Period. Why he strayed from that in the biggest game in the last 17 years of the franchise is a worthwhile question that should be answered before they decide whether or not to bring him back.

I vote no.