About pinch running for A-Rod last night…
By…Dave Cameron at FanGraphs thinks Joe Girardi’s crazy. He says that Girardi took A-Rod “out of a game that could have easily gone to extra innings for something like a one percent improvement in his odds of scoring,” but bases that on raw stolen base numbers (among some other things). A-Rod’s a smart baserunner with good speed despite his hip issue, but Freddy Guzman is way, way faster. He’s Gardner fast. He’d smoke A-Rod in a foot race, and at that point in the game, that’s what it’s all about.
Considering the situation, the focus has to be getting that run across. That’s it, nothing else. There’s already two outs in the ninth, so there’s zero margin of error. There’s no point in worrying about the 10th or 11th or 15th inning when you’re not in a position to get there. If Fast Freddy scores on a Matsui double or a wild pitch when Swisher was up, then no one has a problem with the move. That was one of those rare times in a baseball game when you have to put all your eggs in one basket, and getting that run across is by far the most important thing to do at that point. I can’t believe people are upset about this.
This, this, a thousand times this.
Mike, I’m more upset that they IBBed ARod again. With a lefty on the mound, please tell me that Posada will be protecting him tomorrow nite?
Matsui kills lefties.
remind scoiscia of that then. posada would undoubtedly provide more protection against a lefty starter and a lefty closer
this makes no sense.
you, posada would protect arod better
ellis: matsui has great numbers against lefties so your point is moot
you: tell scoscia that matsui kills lefties cause posada would without a doubt be better protecting arod against lefties.
whatthecrap?
just saying that scoiscia would obviously rather pitch to matsui than arod even though the former hits lefties well.
He’d rather pitch to Posada, then A-rod too.
maybe so, but let’s see that in an actual game situation
fail.
massive fail.
please enlighten me
Doug, Babe Ruth could be hitting 5th in the order, and ARod’s still getting intentionally walked there.
The protection aspect is irrelevant. ARod’s the best hitter in baseball, and he’s on fire at the moment, and he pulverized Fuentes three games ago in the 9th inning. There is no possible roster permutation that would have prevented that IBB by Fuentes there.
okay, thanks
Thanks Tommie.
Its going to be:
Rod
Posada
Matsui
Cano
Swish
Melk
let’s hope so
The IBB didn’t seem to work out too well for the Angels. Sure, they got out of the jam, but they also managed to work themselves to within 1 ball of tying the game.
yeah, but would still rather have my best, and hottest, hitter swing the bat in the 9th
There’s no such thing as protection in a lineup.
Dave Cameron is often not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
The people on the ledge about to jump are just hammering all over the pinch-run substitution. It’s as if pinch-running for A-Rod is the single most important turning point in why the Yanks lost!
Yanks will get them on Saturday and this will all blow over.
unfortunately it won’t bcause the irrational obnoxious fan will be front and center the second oen thing gores wrong in the WS (if and when we make it)
Well, I can dream then … haha.
It isnt why they lost. Its a discussion on why Girardi is over managing and making moves that are irrational.
Bo, you are not in a position to comment on what is and what is not rational.
Girardi’s moves were not irrational, and they weren’t overmanaging.
You’re wrong, as always, Bo.
No, you’re wrong, buddy boy. You’ve been defending Girardi all season, and his goofy moves have mostly been either insignificant, or been overlooked due to the immense talent of this roster, and their ability to make any manager look good.
And now that he’s finally getting exposed, you’re defending him as overly aggressive as he’s managing.
You just can’t bring yourself to admit that Girardi is just unable to let the ballgame unfold without making every effort to control it.
The man is clearly managing scared. How freaken obvious does this need to be? HE thinks it’s a football game, and he’s gotta do something on every play.
That decision was a no-brainer. Guzman has to be in the game.
Using Cameron’s logic, Mo shouldn’t have been lifted for a pinch hitter the other night.
Now you’re assuming that A-Rod cant run.
No. He’s assuming that ARod can’t run as well as Guzman can. That assumption is 100% true.
I have no problem with pinch running for A-Rod. I do have a problem with Swisher looking like the 2009 version of the “1997 ALDS Cecil Fielder.” I was at Game 3 and by the time he came to bat with runner on 3rd and 1 out, it was clear he was in a major funk. With one exception these games are really decided by a run or two. He needs to make contact in a productive way and, while I’ve been ridiculed for preaching it, a bunt would have given the Yanks the margin for victory in that game. If there were a better option, I’d bench him, but we don’t have the “1997 ALDS Mike Stanley” on the bench.
I’ll be honest. I don’t give a motherfuck about what Dave Cameron thinks.
Cameron is dead on here. If Freddy scores, then it’s entirely possible that people are still mad about the move, because there’s about a 98% chance that A-Rod would also have scored, and now you’re out your best hitter for however long this game goes. It was a ridiculous, stupid, incompetent move.
I’d just like to note that you don’t necessarily have to be a ledge-jumper or an irrational, obnoxious fan to have disagreed with the decision to pinch-run for A-Rod last night. I disagreed with that decision, and I wouldn’t even classify myself as “upset” about it, to use Mike’s word from the post above. You can discuss this decision/disagreement without resorting to classifying those you disagree with as upset, obnoxious, and all the other names, that’s really just a well-disguised ad hominem argument.
I happen to think that it was the wrong call. I understand where you guys are coming from, but I disagree and think there are two rational arguments here. The other argument, which you guys aren’t considering, is that keeping A-Rod in that game gave the Yankees a better chance of winning the game. In my opinion, the only real advantage you gain by having Guzman on the basepaths in A-Rod’s place is that Guzman might be, but for the sake of the argument I’ll even grant that he would be, more likely to score from third on a wild-pitch, and maybe that he’d be more likely to score from second on a single (although I think that’s less clear, since I think in that situation A-Rod is scoring from second on any hit anyway). So, in my opinion, in order to agree with the decision to put Guzman in the game for A-Rod, you have to think the utility of gaining that advantage in the very specific situation of a possible run-scoring wild-pitch is more beneficial to the team than having an incredibly hot A-Rod in the game for the more likely extra innings.
I submit that it’s more likely that A-Rod scores the game-tying run in the 9th and then the game is decided in extra-innings than it is that Guzman’s speed creates a game-tying run that A-Rod wouldn’t have scored, and that’s why I don’t replace A-Rod with Guzman.
if the game were tied instead of down a run, would you have made the switch?
Hmmm I don’t know, I hadn’t thought about it that way. I think I’d still say no, though. Two outs, top of the ninth, A-Rod on first, I have to think that it’s more likely that A-Rod comes up to bat again in extra-innings than it is that Guzman scores a run in the ninth that A-Rod wouldn’t have scored.
And, by that, I mean I think it’s more likely that A-Rod is involved in a run-scoring play in extra-innings than it is that Guzman scores a run in the ninth that A-Rod wouldn’t have scored.
Yes. That’s exactly and obviously right.
You always have to do some sort of cost-benefit analysis. You can’t just do whatever you can to score the tying run if it’s going to cripple your chances later. It’s the same flawed “thinking” that caused Girardi to forfeit the DH in Game 3, in return for maybe a 1% chance that (a) the ball would be hit to left field and (b) Hairston would be able to make a throw that Damon couldn’t.
Incidentally, once that mistake had been made, I wouldn’t have pinch hit for Rivera, either — not with two outs and no one on, when the only “hitter” you can send out there is a minor-league catcher who isn’t going to homer for you — but you needn’t go nearly that far to realize that pinch-running here, and forfeiting the DH there, were terrible moves.
Really? You’re not going all out to get the tying run with two outs in the 9th?
I’m with Axisa, I don’t understand how anyone is against the PR. All of the what ifs are great, but they’re useless if you don’t get the run in. And it’s not like you have outs to play with. You’re down to your last out.
“… I don’t understand how anyone is against the PR.”
Really? Nothing I said made any sense? You don’t have to agree with it, but you don’t think that’s a reasonable position?
To you, the only thing that matters is increasing the chance of that single run scoring, no matter how little you’re increasing that chance. To me, the only thing that matters is increasing the odds of winning the game.
Exactly what THCM said. The goal is to win the game, not simply to score that one run. A-Rod obviously gave them the better chance to do that. Now, if it’s Posada, then you PR.
You’re not in a position to even think about wininng the game without getting that runner across the plate.
Yes, of course you are.
You’re in a position to think about winning the game while every single pitch is thrown, not just when you’re tied or ahead. You might think sending in Guzman to pinch-run to A-Rod is the right move, but if you think that, you have to think that because you think it gives the Yankees the best chance to win the game, not the best chance to tie the game.
You play to win the game. This “you’re not in a position to even think about wininng the game” until the game is tied business is nonsense.
That’s ridiculous, Brien. Of course you need to get that run across, but the point here is that you’re talking about a tiny, tiny increase in your chances of doing that. If Guzman is going to score, it’s almost a certainty that A-Rod would score too. And then you’re stuck with a replacement player in the place of your very best one. You’ve increased your odds of tying by some tiny percentage (1%? 2%? 0.5%?), but decreased your chances of winning if you DO tie by a whole lot more than that.
Agree 100%. It wasn’t a big thing, but I definitely question the move for precisely the reason you stated.
+1
I prefer having a reasonably fast experienced runner (Arod) to a very fast inexperienced runner (Guzman). Guzman is far more likely to make a baserunning mistake. Arod is a good baserunner and if the game goes to extra innings we’re looking at Hairston and Gardner batting 4/5. I agree with fangraphs. It was a no brainer.
There’s 2 outs, theres no mistake to make.
You take off on contact and make it to 3rd. On the way there you catch the 3B Coach and see if he’s waving you home- and you score.
There’s no freeze on a line drive, or anything. It’s just run.
There is no extra AB for Alex if Yanks dont score. What if Arod was thrown out at home and he was out by a step or two? This site would blow up on Joe for having a bench and not using it.
Zack, you hit the nail on the head. Why win the battle just to lose the war. I don’t want to be heading into the bottom of the ninth looking out on the field and having our hopes ride on Jerry Hairston Jr. playing 3rd and batting clean up (If he ever gets to bat). If Girardi had been managing in 78 he would’ve pinch hit in the 7th for Bucky Dent.
I agree that it was a mistake. Not the first, not even the first in that game, and unfortunately not likely to be the last.
Girardi over manage?? No way!
Who else saw that game getting to A-Rods spot in extra innings and Jerry hairston hitting. Unreal.
If hes not going to steal 2nd why pinch run!???!!
Because you’re on your last out, and Guzman gives you the best chance of getting the tying run in from 1st on a Matsui hit.
Oh, please. You don’t think AROD can score on a double?? We’re not talking about pinch running for Jose Molina here. What are the odds that a ball is hit in such a way that Guzman would score, but not AROD? Those odds are alot lower than the possibility that AROD’s spot in the order would come up again.
Girardi is continually making the ultra low percentage move that will make him a hero in the event that it actually works. What the hell is in that looseleaf binder, longshots?
I’ve been arguing on the same side as you, but let’s be accurate here… What’s important is not just whether A-Rod is going to come up again in the game, but the odds that leaving A-Rod in the game means the Yankees are more likely to win the game versus the odds that the Yankees win when pinch-running for A-Rod in that spot. It’s entirely possible that pinch-running for him was the right move, but we need a stronger argument than ‘Guzman is a bit faster than A-Rod’ to make that argument inarguable. My hunch is that the odds of the Yankees winning the game are higher if A-Rod stays in the game in that spot and Guzman remains on the bench until he can run for a slower runner, but it’s not like we, or they, have made a convincing case for either argument.
The point of Cameron’s article has more to do with the situation than if Freddy Guzman’s speed is relatively that much greater than Alex’s.
Freddy Guzman is faster than Alex Rodriguez, pre or post surgery. That much is clear to everyone and isn’t actually a logical point of contention.
Cameron argues that Matsui was hitting, and his odds of hitting a double in the gap past the OFs and basically to the wall were extremely negligible, making the Guzman advantage in speed basically pointless.
ding, Ding, DING!!!
winner!
I think this is one of those rationally unsound moves that every manager makes, like refusing to put your closer into a 9th inning tie game situation on the road.
A whole lot of you people need to stop nit picking every decision Girardi makes, especially in the case of that pinch run move last night. You guys nit pick more than Girardi over manages. And we all know how well that fares with this forum….
Criticizing a manager for removing his best player in a one-run playoff game in order to gain an infinitessimally increased chance to score the tying run is “nit picking”? What’s an example of a decision we ARE allowed to criticize?
You think it’s infinitesimal. But if Matsui hits one into the gap, I’m a ton more confident in Guzman scoring than A-Rod.
Then you’re underestimating A-Rod (surprise, surprise).
I’m a huge A-Rod fan. HUGE. But I don’t think it’s underestimating him at all to point out that Freddy Guzman is faster than he is at top speed, and if you need them to run 90 yards, Guzman is going to get there probably 5-10 steps sooner. If he were at third, it wouldn’t matter. 2nd probably doesn’t matter. But being on first, and with two outs in the 9th, it matters quite a bit.
It’s 90 feet, not 90 yards. The rest of that comparison is totally made-up, so I’m not going to bother addressing it.
I have a question, and I’m not being cute or snarky asking this… What are the chances that Thomson is sending Guzman home on a play in which there’s a question whether he’ll make it or not? If Guzman is on first with two outs, and Matsui hits one in the gap, is Thomson sending him if there’s going to be a very close play at the plate?
Try to answer objectively, whether you’ve been arguing for or against Guzman replacing A-Rod on the basepaths last night. I’m not so sure Thomson is taking the risk of sending Guzman in that situation, and I think that’s relevant to this conversation.
No, it’s 90 feet 3 times. 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to home. That’s 270 feet, or 90 yards.
“What are the chances that Thomson is sending Guzman home on a play in which there’s a question whether he’ll make it or not? If Guzman is on first with two outs, and Matsui hits one in the gap, is Thomson sending him if there’s going to be a very close play at the plate?”
Objectively? Based on the fact that they pinch ran him in the first place, I’d say the odds are pretty good they’re sending him if it looks like a close play.
“Based on the fact that they pinch ran him in the first place, I’d say the odds are pretty good they’re sending him if it looks like a close play.”
That’s not necessarily true. The act of sending Guzman in for A-Rod doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to take a big risk with the final out of the game.
“No, it’s 90 feet 3 times. 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to home. That’s 270 feet, or 90 yards.”
Heh, me=fail on that one. I do take issue with the idea that Guzman wins that race by 5-10 steps, though. This is all conjecture so it’s kind of besides the point, but 10 steps? Please. We’re talking about A-Rod here, not Matsui.
I have to run, but I wanted to get one thing in here before abandoning the conversation… From the start of this conversation I haven’t said there’s not reason for you guys to like the decision to insert Guzman for A-Rod, I really got involved here because I thought it was unfair for people on that side of the conversation to be so dismissive of those on the other side of the conversation as if this is some sort of black-and-white issue. I said as much in my first response to you and in my first comment in this thread when I said: “I understand where you guys are coming from, but I disagree and think there are two rational arguments here.” At this point in the conversation I’d hope you guys could at least concede that much.
That’s all. I’ll come back later and respond if anyone has any further responses for me. Take it easy.
That’s not necessarily true. The act of sending Guzman in for A-Rod doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to take a big risk with the final out of the game.
Maybe not, and maybe I’m assuming rationality where there was none, but it seems to me that, good choice or not, the only way the decision to PR makes sense is if you’re thinking about scoring from first. Now, if Thomson thought Guzman would get out, obviously he’d have held him, but if we’re defining “close” as a bang-bang play, then yes, objectively speaking, I think they would have taken their chances with the runner.
Heh, me=fail on that one.
I should have made mention of going from first to home to avoid confusion. My bad.
Well I said 5-10, so let’s go with 7. That’s a step every 10 yards, with, what, 50 yards worth of top speed running? That doesn’t seem totally outlandish to me. A younger A-Rod maybe, but 34 year old post-hip injury A-Rod? I might be overestimatin Guzman a bit, but if we’re talking balls out running from the point of contact, I think that’s a fair estimate.
Eh, I think you’re overestimating the difference in speed between Guzman and A-Rod, and I think describing A-Rod as the “34 year old post-hip injury A-Rod” is a bit unfair and misleading since we’ve seen him running very well lately. He doesn’t run as well as he did when he was 25, but he still runs pretty darn well.
Also, this: http://riveraveblues.com/2009/.....ent-647532
How many times out of 10 is Guzman scoring from first on a play that would not have led to a run being scored if A-Rod had been on first?
Don’t tell me that Freddy Guzman can run a marathon faster than A-Rod can, that’s irrelevant. Guzman’s faster than A-Rod, nobody is arguing that point. All that matters here is how much the Yankees increased the odds of scoring a run by substituting Guzman for A-Rod, and I don’t think they increased those odds nearly as much as you guys seem to.
Well, I suppose that depends on how you look at the math. If they went from a 10% chance of scoring to an 11% chance, do you consider that a 1% increase or a 10% increase?
The percentage increase isn’t what’s important, I just asked that question to illustrate the point that, in my opinion, the odds of a play occurring in which Guzman scores a run that A-Rod wouldn’t have scored are very low. Since I start with that premise, and I know that having A-Rod at third and in the lineup (meaning, mind you, that Guzman is still on the bench to pinch-run for someone else and Hairston doesn’t have to go into the game to play third and bat cleanup) provides a pretty big benefit to the team, my hunch is that the benefit of having A-Rod in the game outweighs the benefit of having Guzman run for A-Rod.
Whatevs, we’ve beaten this one into the ground. I’m more than willing to admit I might be wrong about this. I’m still not sure how anyone can completely dismiss the argument that Guzman shouldn’t have been inserted for A-Rod, though.
It seems like Girardi can’t be criticized unless that criticism gets a stamp of approval from certain people around here.
Nobody’s calling for Girardi’s head over this. Most of the people who disagree with this move have stated that position pretty calmly and have kept this issue in perspective.
This is a valid conversation and I think there are valid points being made on both side of that conversation. Nobody has to keep their opinion to themselves just because you don’t want to have this conversation. If you don’t want to engage in this conversation and don’t think it’s worthy of being discussed, then move along to another thread.
This.
I understand that the Positive Posse is generally correct.
But certain people around here have swung too far in counteracting, or distinguishing themselves from, the irrational Francesa caller/LoHuder.
Not criticizing Girardi when he does something irrational is as bad as criticizing him when he does something rational.
“It seems like Girardi can’t be criticized unless that criticism gets a stamp of approval from certain people around here.”
You’ve finally figured out how it works.
“Nobody’s calling for Girardi’s head over this.”
That wouldn’t do a lick of good anyway. I think Cashman’s defense of the Robertson lifting pretty much tells you that Girardi’s head isn’t going anywhere anyway.
I don’t think that Guzman is that much faster then A-rod that it warrants his replacement and losing A-Rod’s bat in the possibility of extra innings.
That’s the bottom line.
Also Hairston’s play at 3b is underwhelming. A horrendous decision.
I’m not sure that I agree with the move either, but I think that Girardi was accounting for the moves that had been made up to that point:
1. Marte, Hughes, Joba, and potentially Mo would have not been available had the game gone into extra innings. That left D-Rob, Aceves, Coke, and Gaudin. D-Rob could give you an inning as we have seen no indication of an interest in having him pitch more than one inning. Coke has become a LOOGY, so perhaps you get, at most, 2/3 of an inning. Ace could go more than an inning, but hasn’t looked sharp in the ALDS. Gaudin has pitched just one inning in more than two weeks.
2. It was likely that if they tie ARod would not have come up again for three innings, meaning some combination of his second tier of relievers.
So, he was essentially putting everything on scoring in the 9th. If nothing else, perhaps he should be credited with a sense of urgency in trying to end the game right then, rather than worrying about what might happen in two or three innings that might never happen.
But you’re playing for one run in that case, which ties the game, which (you hope) sends it to extra innings. It’s incoherent to be playing for a tie by shooting yourself in the foot in the event it goes to extra innings.
You’re not playing for one run in the traditional sense that you’re giving up an out (or 2) to get one run. You’re playing aggressively to get one run on one play, because you don’t have any more outs to give up.
Yeah, as I said, I don’t know that I agree with the move and actually think that I agree more with others who have said that it would have only made a small difference in one or two possible plays and thus was probably not worth it. I was more trying to think through Girardi’s thought process.
I’m wondering if the move is more about the confidence, or lack thereof, that Girardi had in the remaining members of the bullpen to keep the score tied before ARod would get another at-bat. That is, if it tells us something about what Girardi thinks about the hierarchy in the bullpen.
In other words, the move was more “all-hands-on-deck” because he believed that the game was not going to go two or three more innings, regardless of whether or not they tied it there—that the bullpen was not going to hold them beyond Mo.
Dumb move. Period. Angels were in no doubles anyway, if Guzman was scoring on a play than so was A-Rod (who gets great secondary leads).
Matsui just scored from first a few innings prior.
Girardi is pressing for the W
You gotta make sure you don’t short hand the team by trying 2 score in the 7th 8th and 9th. Or short hand the BP by managing like we have the lead.
It almost cost us in game 2 with he way he handled the bullpen…
I definitely disagreed with pinch running for A-Rod … The main point is that there are so few ways it helped. There’s no way they let him steal with a lefty on the mound and 2 outs … In fact I think they’d trust A-Rod to steal more there because they know him. I would bet Guzman had the red light. So that limits his utility.
The one thing that hasn’t been brought up is that we have no idea if Guzman is a good baserunner! We know he’s fast and appears he can steal bases. Just as examples, Melky and Bernie are/were fast but both terrible base stealers and nothing special in the instinctual parts of the game and running the bases. We know A-Rod has run the bases great in this series (including in this game) and we know he’s at least back to above average speed the last month.
It’s just not a big enough upgrade with the stolen base taken out of play to lose your best bat for potential extra innings.
Not for nothing but many pretty smart guys like Rob Neyer, Keith Law and Joe Sheehan all ripped Girardi last night for pinch-running for Arod.
Apparently you didn’t get the memo, it’s crazy to question that decision. Open and shut case. No argument allowed.
Not only that but Joe Girardi has basically become a punchline for all those guys. I follow many of them on twitter and the tweets they put out bascially mock and make fun of Girardi left and right.
Now I understand its one thing for guys like myself and other people who comment here who rip Girardi to maybe get ridiculed because obviously we dont know 1/1000th about baseball as Girardi does, fair enough.
BUT when very highly regarded and respected baseball writers/analysts rip Girardi to shreds to for his overmanaging then what??
Up is down, bad is good, black is white.
All opinions are equal, some are just more equal thans others.
I personally don’t have those kinds of problems with Girardi, but I think it’s a bit ridiculous for anyone to pretend his tactical decisions have been perfect. Then again, be careful to keep things in perspective here… I don’t think too many people would argue or have argued here that his tactical decisions have been perfect.
I didn’t love this decision being discussed in this thread, but that’s not the same as not liking Girardi in general.
My problem always has and always will be the double standard here in regards to defending Girardi like crazy as if he was Casey Stengel but easily ridicule, mock and rip the job Torre did here.
For some reason many people here hate Torre so much that they want Girardi to succeed and look like a genius in the process as a way to further rip Torre and will defend Girardi til the end irrationally even. Bets thing is people will easily defend Girardi by saying 103 wins during the regular season, what more do you want?? HELLO and what did Torre do here year after year after year????
Fact is both have proven to me at least to be less than stellar game mangaers which in the end really doesnt matter because the teams they manage are for the most part so much more talented than every other team they play it doesnt really matter. Also again I actually had no problems with the way Girardi managed the pen last night so I dont blame Girardi at all for last night’s loss, the loss was squarely on the shoulders of AJ, Hughes and in the end Swisher. I hope the Yankees win it all and I hope Girardi wins as many if not more WS with the Yankees as Torre did but at this moment he does not have the track record as a manager yet where his moves shouldnt be questioned at all and given the benefit of the doubt at all times.
BigBlueAL
I know you been here long enough to understand that there certain views that the leadership here has and their followers. They should be very clear you by now.
Well you know what though I respect Mike, Ben and Joseph because they are willing to criticize Girardi and at least Mike I know has never really ripped Torre and at least has appreciated the job he did here so while they obviously agree with Girardi on this decision I wont put the RAB leadership in the category of over-the-top Girardi worshipers.
Look I want Girardi’s decisions to work because I obviously want the Yankees to win and as I said I have no problems with the way he managed Game 5 and after watching him in the post-game press conferences this season I give him credit because he certainly has come a long way from last year in dealing with defeats in terms of how he portrays himself with the media.
In the end as I said in the game recap thread the Yankees are up 3-2 going into Game 6 which every single one of us wouldve taken in a heartbeat before the series started so the Yankees are still in a great position and I fully expect them to beat the Angels and win the WS.
I respect the guys here too, but sometimes I get the feeling that people here won’t be happy until the Yankees win a championship with little to no connection to the 1996 Dynasty.
To be more direct a Cashman/Girardi lead championship team with Hughes,Joba,IPK all in the starting rotation with little to no contribution from anyone of the 1996 Dynasty.
It’s just a feeling I could be wrong, but that could explain the over the top support.
I think you’re as far wrong as can possibly be. We just want the Yankees to win.
Ok.
I agree with this. It is also worth pointing out that anyone who agrees with this should also agree with Rebecca that Girardi made a mistake not bringing in Mo in the 7th. The two decisions are based on exactly the same logic.
No, they’re not, that’s an oversimplification.
Another article written after drinking the Yankee Cool Aid.
Pinch running for the best player in baseball is stupid and most of Girardi’s moves are head scratchers.If the Yankees lose this series the Steinbrenners will pull out the short list of managers to interview.
I think Dave Cameron is absolutely right. Pinch-running for A-Rod – A-ROD! – in a game that could easily have gone to extra innings was about the stupidest decision I have ever, ever seen Girardi make. And I like Girardi.
And don’t tell me Freddy Guzman is faster than A-Rod. He is, but the likelihood that the difference between Guzman’s speed and Alex’s is going to decide that game is not even 1%. It is WAY less than that.
If the Yankees tie the game without taking the lead, they would probably lose in extra frames. With Rodriguez and then Matsui removed from the game for pinch-runners (Guzman and Gardner, not exactly hitting studs), the Angels would have an overwhelming advantage in a tie game. I didn’t like the idea of the Yanks putting two pinch-runners on their roster for exactly this reason … Girardi will use them, it won’t get the Yanks any more runs (in fact, Gardner’s already been thrown out twice in this series, right?), and if the game goes to extras the Yanks will be severely undermanned.
This was simply indefensible.