YES Network.com

Disregarding the passage of time, I nominate Tiny Bonham. As a rookie called up in August, 1940, he went 9-3 with a 1.91 ERA down the stretch. Unfortunately, Tiny didn't make it through that appendectomy so we've got to look elsewhere. Mendoza might surprise, but given that he's given up 56 hits in 49.2 innings at Columbus with an ERA of 4.89, I'm not sure that he has much to offer. Steven White got shelled in his last start (4.2 innings, eight hits, six runs, three walks, three strikeouts, one home run) and the one before that (six innings, eight hits, six runs, no walks, for strikeouts, two home runs), so he's out for awhile.

I've said this before, but if I were going to choose an internal solution, I would skip right past Columbus and head for Trenton. It's not only because I've just returned from watching Phil Hughes strike out eight batters in a rain-shortened four-inning start, but because he has the highest upside of anyone that has been floated, inside or outside of the organization. In a previous entry I enumerated the many pitchers who have made the jump from Double-A this year. Suffice it to say that it is not unheard of and not without success.

Failing that, I think the Yankees should do what they've been doing. They should give Sidney Ponson another start and, if he fails, try Shawn Chacon again. They're in a fight with four teams: the White Sox, Twins, Red Sox, and Blue Jays. None of those teams has a stacked rotation, so the Yankees have some room for error. Conversely, solving the fifth spot would give them a leg up (and there's nothing to say that those teams won't make a move). A Miguel Batista, Cory Lidle, or Jon Lieber isn't worth a high price. Nor are they guaranteed to post an ERA under 5.00. Parenthetically, I would rate those three pitchers in that order.

Adding a bat might still be the path of least resistance and would accomplish roughly the same purpose as deducting runs. The Yankees are presently scoring 5.6 runs per game and allowing 4.7. Let's play with some very imprecise math (the only kind I know). The way I figure it, if the Yankees replaced Bernie Williams with Bobby Abreu, and assuming the same level of production for Abreu, the offense would bump up to 5.9 runs per game. Right now the Yankees' expected winning percentage based on runs scored and allowed is .587. They've played one game better than that. At 5.9 runs per game, and pitching being constant, the team's expected winning percentage would be .612. That means you'd expect them to go 39-24 over their remaining 63 games, as compared to 37-26.

All you guys who can actually do math, write in and tell me if I'm in the ballpark here. If you check out the article Nate Silver wrote at Baseball Prospectus yesterday going into the impact of acquiring Bobby Abreu, Carlos Lee, and Alfonso Soriano on the various contenders, you'll see that he fixes the impact of a Yankees Abreu acquisition at 1 1/2 games, so it seems like my back of the envelope work has led us to the right place.

2: FASANO'S FOOTE
Don't be surprised if Fasano can provide a quick lift the way Barry Foote did when he was acquired. If I am not mistaken Foote hit two home runs in his Yankees debut against the Tigers in Detroit. Fasano, for short spurts, can provide more than Stinnett. — Darrell

I think it was Rany Jazayerli who came up with the Law of Back-Up Catchers, which says that all of them will have at least one fluke good season just due to good luck and small sample sizes. Sometimes those extend into full seasons, producing a season like Rick Cerone had for the Yankees in 1980 or Josh Bard (.366/.424/.597) is having for the Padres. Unfortunately, I think Fasano had his version last year, when he and his moustache popped 11 home runs for the Orioles. More to the point, for the Yankees' sake you'd better hope that Fasano doesn't get an opportunity to provide a quick lift, because that would mean Jorge Posada isn't playing for some reason.

That was exactly the reason the Yankees acquired Foote in 1981, because Cerone had broken his hand and the incumbent backstops were inadequate.

By the way, it was one home run in his first game. What you're remembering is that Foote went crazy upon coming to the Yankees, hitting five home runs in his first seven games. After a week he was batting .292/.346/.917. It was all too good to be true; he hit just one more home run and few hits of any stripe. He finished the season batting .208/.256/.384.

3: JUST THREE-FIFTHS ARE COOL?
Great column on A-Rod. It was well reasoned and articulately argued. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that those who would benefit most from reading it are probably not part of your audience. Based on my observations from attending about 12-15 games this year, booing A-Rod has become the "cool" thing to do among the Stadium denizens who come to the Bronx for three reasons: drink beer, act vulgar and, oh yeah, drink more beer. Sadly, these "fans" are becoming a growing segment of the Yankee Stadium population. Personally, I think coming to the big, bad Bronx to drink and act tough attracts many suburbanites to the games. Getting to boo an obscenely rich guy with good looks and a better looking wife is just icing on the cake. I have always maintained that "real" Yankee fans fill up the first 30,000 seats of the Stadium, with bandwagon jumpers and miscreants taking up the additional space. It's just a shame that the vocal minority gets to speak for most knowledgeable Yankee fans who appreciate A-Rod's awesome talent and realize that his contribution is vital to the team's success. — William

Thanks, William. When I wrote of a "howling pack of anonymous cowards" it was that fraction of fans who come to the park more to act out than appreciate a ballgame (though some others have chosen to see themselves in that description). Over at Baseball Prospectus, we often get into these rather futile discussions about the deafening music and other distractions that every stadium has these days, and how they detract from the ballgame itself. When people actually involved with marketing baseball teams get involved with those discussions, they insist that most people are not there for the game, they're there for the noise, the subway races on the scoreboard, the alcohol, and, apparently, the part where you get to shout rude things at strangers. If the game was marketed on its own, Baseball thinks no one would come. (Joe Sheehan wrote a little about this here.

My late grandfather was a Frenchman who knew something about drinking, which is not to say he drank too much, but rather that he was a connoisseur of the stuff and its effects (at a young and impressionable age, he explained to me what he felt were the many medicinal applications of Cointreau, which I now believe were largely imaginary, or psychosomatic benefits in his case, though I find the stuff does go well with hot cocoa). I remember him telling me, when I was somewhere around seven or eight, about how drink could make you laugh, then it could make you sing, then it could make you sick, and then it could make you sleep. Something like that. I wish I had listened more closely to so many things he said. Another thing he said about alcohol was that it revealed a person's true self, that there were friendly drunks and mean drunks, and you should watch out for the mean drunks when they were sober, no matter how nice they appeared to be, because they were hiding their nature. I have often thought of his words while sitting in the stands watching some obviously intoxicated boob throw things at the field.

I had a number of messages similar to yours, saying it's not the fans, it's the louts (that howling pack) who are after A-Rod. The problem is that their howling has confused itself with a legitimate discussion of team policy to the point that Brian Cashman has to answer questions about trading Rodriguez. That's ludicrous.

4: THE PHILLIPS THAT DIDN'T BARK IN THE NIGHT
I've been rooting hard for Andy Phillips all season and I still think he has yet to show his best stuff. I can't help but notice that he has a very unusual righty/lefty split. Against lefties, he's a Womackian .176/.218/.230. vs. righties, he's .271/.298/.511. He still needs to consider taking some walks, but his righty split is pretty decent for a bench player. In just about 200 Abs, it would be easy to write this off as an anomaly, but I watch the games. He looks a lot better vs. righties. He goes deeper in the count and has better plate coverage against righties. Lefties can beat him with the fastball up and away and with the breaking pitch down and in. Which set of numbers is the aberration? Is there any chance that he is a reverse platoon player, or does such a thing even exist? If so, is there any chance that Torre would use him more vs. righties and stop starting him against lefties? Is my wife correct that I spend too much time worrying about Yankees bench players? — Thanks, Ed

I was chatting about this very topic with Cliff Corcoran of the Bronx Banter blog on the way to Trenton last night (Cliff was my seeing-eye blogger for the evening). I haven't done a thorough search, but I would bet that the number of right-handed hitters who have had real problems hitting left-handed pitching would be infinitesimally small. Unfortunately, I don't have Phillips' minor league splits so I can't tell you whether this is something that has cropped up before. I very much doubt it given how well he hit. Over time I think this will change. There have been players whose platoon splits went out of whack for a year before reverting in the next season. Bernie Williams comes to mind. In his career he's killed lefties (career .308/.398/.503 coming into this season), but last year he batted just .231/.305/.286 off of them. You always see manager bring in lefties to turn him around, but last year was the only time it actually made sense. This year he's hitting .337/.400/.533 against them, and he's been a big asset when a portsider is in the game.

Another off-the-top-off-my-head example is Jay Buhner. Buhner batted .269/.373/.524 against lefties, better than his numbers against normal people. In his first 169 major league at-bats against them, he hit just .195. He had a few seasons were he went Babe Ruth on them. In 1995 he batted .336/.439/.655 against lefties. In 1997 he hit .317/.449/.627. The next year he batted just .173 against them in 52 at-bats. These things happen.

As for your wife, what would she rather you worry about, the Middle East? Actually, if she wants you to worry about the Middle East because if you thought really hard about it you might have something important to contribute, then I'm on her side. The world can't spare you, Ed.

5: THE DANGLING CONVERSATION
You are right that A-Rod remains a potent offensive force, but he's not the best player in the American League, and he remains an idol of statisticians and something less impressive if you watch him. It is obvious A-Rod is not a clutch player. Bernie Williams deserves his props for his integrity, class, team spirit, clutch hitting, World Series accomplishments, great fielding, and some phenomenal hitting seasons. All these things made fans overlook the fact Bernie never could run the bases well despite his natural speed, and that he is now past his prime (though not past clutch hitting). A-Rod lacks that personal grit that endears fans to players like Bernie, Jeter, Ichiro in Seattle, Tino Martínez, even Ortiz. It's up to A-Rod to earn it. — Gregg

I completely agree with you. What I disagree with are the people that seem to think (1) he's so bad that he shouldn't be allowed to earn it, (2) that he's bad, and (3) that until such point as he "earns" their appreciation they should fail to support him and in fact treat him badly. Who are they to ask that of anyone, in any context?

6: THIS NOTE IS NOT NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT EITHER
In your 7/24/06 Pinstriped Blog, you stated, "Rodríguez is given only negative reinforcement," which is a misuse of the term negative reinforcement. If you are interested in a quick lesson in learning theory (according to B. F. Skinner) feel free to read on. Otherwise, just me say that I enjoy your work, and we will leave it at that. Most people mistakenly believe that negative reinforcement is another term for punishment, but this is incorrect. Reinforcement (positive or negative reinforcement) increases the likelihood that a behavior will increase in frequency and/or intensity. This is different from punishment, which leads to a decrease in the frequency and/or intensity of a behavior. Positive reinforcement is the introduction of something positive, such as praise, gifts, special attention, etc., to increase the intensity and/or frequency of the behavior. For example, if my child does something good, and I praise her, she is more likely to repeat that behavior. Negative reinforcement is the removal of a negative to increase a behavior. In other words, if you remove something unpleasant (pain, discomfort, etc.), the act of removing the unpleasant is a positive experience and therefore it is rewarding (reinforcing). For example, when you start the ignition in some cars, there is a loud, unpleasant buzz until you buckle you seatbelt. The act of buckling the seatbelt is rewarded by the elimination of something unpleasant (buzzing). I hope that this was not too boring. — KF

Not boring at all. I stand corrected. The only thing I don't know now is what Rodríguez is actually experiencing. It's not negative reinforcement, and it sure as heck ain't positive reinforcement. I guess that just leaves "abuse."

7: THE A-ROD LITANY
Jim (I think his name is Jim; he didn't sign) objected to the bit in the last reader mail segment when I listed the litany of bad things A-Rod was responsible for, from sinking the Lusitania to breaking up the Beatles to invading Iraq. Listen in:

Just once I would like you to actually put forward a lengthy, cogent argument in favor of the idiotic political views you spout, Steve. "Invaded Iraq under false pretenses..."

[Snipped for length]

Here's the thing, Steve, and I've said it many times. It's not that your political views are so offensive (though citing Atrios as a disseminator of "thoughtful stuff" is a clue to your hard leftism) it's that you never bother to make an argument, largely because, I suspect, you know that while you can make a solid case for Iraq being a mistake, you have no good evidence for impugning the motives of those who made the decision to invade. So, please, if you can't explain your fascinating ability to read the minds of Bush, Rumsfeld et al, shut up about it. And don't whine that you're just being "thought provoking." Unsupported accusations of ulterior motives only provoke the thought that when it comes to politics, logic and evidence (which support your baseball reasoning) are fair-weather friends.

Jim, I've been thinking about your note for the last three days and about a satisfactory way of answering it without getting into the specifics of the case, which no one wants to see me do here, including me. Then I realized I didn't have to because you've made a couple of incorrect assumptions. Asked by a reader if Alex Rodríguez could be blamed for Jason Giambi's slump, I wrote:

"Yup. He also sank the Lusitania, bribed the White Sox to throw the 1919 World Series, gave Grover Alexander his first bottle and Dylan Thomas and Brendan Behan too, insisted that Anna Sten could recite English dialogue in major motion pictures, appeased the Germans at Munich, bombed Pearl Harbor, intimidated Humphrey Bogart into canceling his HUAC appearance in support of the Hollywood Ten, caused Mickey Mantle's knee injuries, suppressed the publication of "Lolita," forced Elvis to record endless albums of pap for RCA, told JFK to go forward with the Bay of Pigs and start the Vietnam War, broke up the Beatles, burgled the Watergate, instigated all those fights between Billy and Reggie, greenlit 'Ishtar,' told George that Donnie's hair was too long, traded for Steve Trout, raised taxes after pledging not to, said, 'I did not have sex with that woman,' made the decision to tear down the '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' ride at Disney World and replace it with a kiddy playground, invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and revealed Valerie Plame's covert status to Robert Novak. Otherwise, he hasn't done anything wrong."

First, you'll notice I didn't make an argument explaining any of it. I didn't expect a lot of readers to know much about Anna Sten (though one did, hurray!). It occurred to me that someone could possibly take issue with the Bogart/Hollywood Ten thing, or even the bit about "Lolita." Hell, you could say that I gave Neville Chamberlain a raw deal, that he was a man of peace trying to avoid a war over the Czechs or the Poles, who, arguably (some have argued it anyway; I don't agree), it wasn't in Britain's national interest to defend. Explaining or qualifying any of it would have ruined the joke, so I risked offending all those Chamberlain fans out there and losing the dozens who would inevitably wonder why I would accuse the nice guy who starred in "The Thorn Birds" of doing anything improper with the Nazis.

Second, and more importantly, I didn't say anything about anyone's motivations. I said false pretenses, which is to say that the many reasons given to support taking military action in 2003 were falsely stated. I'm not going to enumerate those here because it's not the place for me to do so, but many of them were first-guessed at the time, and with a little light work you can find any of the dozens if not hundreds of books and articles reviewing the rationales and suggesting things were not as advertised, something that polling suggests the majority of Americans now take for granted. Let me just give you one tiny, inarguable, non-partisan, false pretense: that it would be easy.

Now, if I had spoken to motivations, perhaps your comment about mind-reading would be germane. To be completely truthful, I doubt their motivations as well, but as you say, that's more speculative (at least for now). In any case, I said nothing about ulterior motives, and so your complaint has no relevance to what I wrote.

Finally, it's not "whining" to say that I was only trying to provoke thought. Everything I do here is intended to provoke thought (which is not the same thing as merely being provocative). If someone hasn't heard of Anna Sten and they Google up her IMBD Bio they've learned something. It might not be anything important, but it's a door they've gone through and we've gone through together. Now we have some common ground to talk about. Maybe they go further and realize that Cole Porter mentioned Ms. Sten in the lyrics to "Anything Goes:" "If Sam Goldwyn can with great conviction/ Instruct Anna Sten in diction/ Then Anna shows/ Anything goes." Now we have something else in common. If someone thinks about the Hollywood Ten for a moment, or the Lusitania, or reads our discussion here and googles a Meet the Press transcript, or just laughs at the bloody joke (which I imagine we've killed pretty dead at this point) then I've done my job.

The more we know about everything, the more we know about baseball. Unfortunately the reverse is not true. It just means we have to work harder.

Finally, any writer out there will understand this point: sometimes you explain things in full and sometimes you lay the seeds of explaining for some future time. Sometimes you take the audience by the nose and sometimes you just lead the horse to water and hope it drinks. You hope that he result won't be more like Dorothy Parker's pun on the preceding: "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think." I'll do 90 percent of the work, but if you don't bring something to the table — say the merest amount of checking to see if something you disagree with, from Bernie's batting average to Baghdad, is correctly stated — I can't help you.

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT

MONDAY, July 24, 2006: Posted at 1:48 p.m.

1: THE LABORER IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE
Blaming the fans because A-Rod doesn't have the heart to succeed in New York is like blaming the Israelis for the problems in the Middle East. Not only has A-Rod failed miserably to be David Ortíz, he was given the MVP award because he played defense and saved games with his defense, and Ortíz doesn't. That simply means that Ortíz's defense hasn't cost Boston any games, unlike A-Rod. Is it the fans' fault that he can't throw the ball anywhere near his aim-point? Even Joe Torre has figured out that A-Rod is becoming a big problem. He finally wins a game or two with his bat, and then gives them back with his arm. It is no surprise that every team for which he has played was a better team after he left. He's great at piling up stats when the games are not on the line. Despite your meaningless stats concerning his clutch hitting, his late inning stats in tied or one run games are terrible. ESPN featured those stats after the Justice rip. … If you expect to be the highest-paid player ever, your employer should be able to expect him to at least be the best player on his team! — Tony

Tony, if I suspect you're not objective where Rodríguez is concerned, it's because of your use of the phrase, "If you expect to be the highest paid player." Like all of us, Rodríguez is worth whatever he can bargain for. No player or any other working human on this planet has turned down a proposed salary because it was too high. Nor does Rodríguez's salary have the same effect on the Yankees that it would have on the Kansas City Royals. It's immaterial to any discussion of his contributions. He makes what he makes if he hits .600 or .200. It really shouldn't be of concern to anyone except George Steinbrenner and his wallet.

That's the guy you were referencing when you wrote "Your employer should be able to expect..." In truth, all he can expect is a game effort on the part of the player. There are a lot of variables that go into a player's production and not all of them are controllable. You're operating under the misconception that there's some kind of strict ratio between a player's dollars received and the amount of production the team gets in return, like there was some money-to-talent exchange rate that had been established somewhere. There's no such thing. If every team was efficient about how it spends its dollars there would be, but they're not. The only sure thing about A-Rod's contract is that he'll receive what the Yankees (or the Rangers) agreed to pay him.

We should also throw David Ortíz out of the discussion. While Rodríguez has not been Ortíz, Ortíz cannot be A-Rod. However badly A-Rod is playing third right now, and gee whiz, is it bad, Ortíz would be worse. You're comparing unlike things. It's lovely that they finished next to each other in a close MVP race. That proximity is their only relationship. I'm sure there are readers old enough to remember when Don Mattingly finished second to Roger Clemens in the 1986 MVP voting. No one was walking around saying, "Roger Clemens has failed to be Don Mattingly," or "Don Mattingly ain't no Roger Clemens." It would have made no sense.

Now, I am not denying that A-Rod has had his difficulties of late. On the season he's been quite good, though inconsistent. His April was decent but not up to his usual standards. In May he was everything you would have wanted (.330/.416/.615). In June he slumped badly (.213/.346/.348), but his July was looking good until the last seven to 10 days. That's when the defensive situation, which had been shaky all year long, got worse and then metastasized to his bat. Over the last seven days, Rodríguez is 6-for-26 with eight strikeouts. There are also two home runs mixed in there, so it hasn't been all bad at the plate, just mostly bad. In the field it's been close to all bad.

I'm not blaming the fans for any of that. What I do blame them for — the A-Rod booing segment, that is — is for creating an unsupportive atmosphere. If Derek Jeter was going through an all-around slump he would get sympathy, not hostility. Because of his salary or some other factor, Rodríguez is given only negative reinforcement. I'm reminded of something that Matt DeSalvo said when I interviewed hi last week. When he was having his control problems and walking batter after batter, the crowd would get on him. He would hear people shouting, "Throw a ----ing strike!" He would think, "Don't you think I want to? Don't you think I would if I could?"

Don't you think A-Rod wants to? Don't you think he would if he could?

2: AND REMEMBER THE MAINE!
Giambi said, "I've been extending my strike zone a bit trying to drive in some runs and take some pressure off Al," Does that mean we can blame A-Rod for Giambi's slump too? — Tim

Yup. He also sank the Lusitania, bribed the White Sox to throw the 1919 World Series, gave Grover Alexander his first bottle and Dylan Thomas and Brendan Behan too, insisted that Anna Sten could recite English dialogue in major motion pictures, appeased the Germans at Munich, bombed Pearl Harbor, intimidated Humphrey Bogart into canceling his HUAC appearance in support of the Hollywood Ten, caused Mickey Mantle's knee injuries, suppressed the publication of "Lolita," forced Elvis to record endless albums of pap for RCA, told JFK to go forward with the Bay of Pigs and start the Vietnam war, broke up the Beatles, burgled the Watergate, instigated all those fights between Billy and Reggie, greenlit "Ishtar," told George that Donnie's hair was too long, traded for Steve Trout, raised taxes after pledging not to, said, "I did not have sex with that woman," made the decision to tear down the "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" ride at Disney World and replace it with a kiddie playground, invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and revealed Valerie Plame's covert status to Robert Novak. Otherwise, he hasn't done anything wrong.

I always feel a tinge of sadness when I see that famous picture of A-Rod and Neville Chamberlain waiving that piece of paper and declaring "peace in our time." I don't know how anyone took A-Rod seriously after that.

3: ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE?
I am glad to see someone come to A-Rod's defense. The treatment he is receiving is beyond absurd, and it certainly isn't helping the team as they head toward the trading deadline. The part of the Blog that I had to step back and take exception to was the paragraph beginning with the following: "There is a segment of fans — a large segment, possibly the majority — that likes to pretend that it's rooting for a pennant or a championship every year, but is really about the players." Is this not how we all become fans of a given team? It may seem childish or corny ... or like I have seen "Field of Dreams" one too many times, but when we are young, we are attracted to a way a certain player holds his bat or runs the bases — and that sticks with us. I feel no particular affinity for George Steinbrenner, Brian Cashman, or much of the Yanks' top brass; I DO root for the players. Otherwise, I guess I just chose my favorite team based on their uniforms, which seems like even less of an intelligent decision. I guess I was just disappointed to find myself condescended to as one of "THOSE fans." — Chris

Chris, there are many different ways into this thing we call baseball. I would think all baseball fans pick out favorite players, and maybe for some of them (including yourself) that's the extent of their interest. It seems to me though that the main thing for most fans, at least on the surface, is that their teams win. If that wasn't paramount, the season could consist of exhibitions by roving all-star teams. Offseason barnstorming was like that back in the old days. Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth would come to your town in November with a bunch of major leaguers. They'd chose up sides and play a game. It didn't really matter if the Lou team beat the Babe team or vice versa, just that you saw the stars play.

As popular as, say, Derek Jeter is, I don't think most fans would be happy if the Yankees went 52-110 year but Jeter hit .365. Watching the combination of Jeter getting three hits and the Yankees losing wouldn't be novel for very long. The problem is that there are some fans who would like to have it both ways. They would like to boo A-Rod, not caring how this might affect the outcome of the season. They would like Bernie Williams to play until he's 74 and patrolling right field with a walker regardless of what that means to the team's chances. They prioritize their visceral reaction to the players, positive or negative, over winning. I question what it is they're trying to accomplish in A-Rod's case, other than mere cruelty.

You would think that being a Yankee fan would mean wanting all the Yankees to do well. Giving all of the A-Rod detractors the benefit of the doubt, maybe they are convinced that his being on the team runs counter to the Yankees winning. I don't see how you can make that argument, because as bad as A-Rod has been lately, he (1) hasn't been BAD — remember Mike Blowers? He was a bad third baseman. A-Rod isn't Mike Blowers, and (2) there is every reason to believe he's going to rebound. Still, if you want to try that argument out, hey, that's all right. Just be sure to suggest a better alternative. I've been not too subtly asking for someone to make a reasonable suggestion for weeks now and I still haven't heard it. By "better alternative" I mean something feasible, by the way. Unless you have some inside knowledge that Billy Beane is offering Barry Zito and Eric Chavez for A-Rod, please, spare us.

Chris, I wasn't denigrating the idea of having an affinity for certain players. That's a very basic part of the game's appeal. If that's enough for you, great. For the rest, though, I was trying to draw a distinction between words and actions. Saying you're rooting for the team to win is words. Kicking A-Rod when he's down is an action which belies the truthfulness of those words.

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT