Archive for Musings
Drilling down on Roy Halladay
Posted by: | CommentsWhen it comes to pitchers on the block, the Yankees are always a likely destination simply because, for the last 15 years, landing pitchers has been the team’s modus operandi. They acquired David Cone in 1995, David Wells after the 1996 season and Roger Clemens prior to 1999 campaign. In the 2000s, the names — Javier Vazquez, Randy Johnson — kept coming but with less success, and just a year ago, the Yankees nabbed CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett out of the clutches of free agency.
So we arrive in the winter of 2009-2010 with Roy Halladay seemingly filling the role Johan Santana played in 2007-2008. Already, the Yankees have been rumored to be interested in Roy Halladay, and the new Blue Jays’ GM Alex Anthopoulos seems both willing to ship off Halladay and willing to send him to an AL East competitor.
The parallels to Santana are obvious. Halladay is one of the American League’s top five pitchers, and as he has aged, he’s become a smarter and better pitcher. Over the last two years, he’s 37-21 with a 2.78 ERA and 414 strike outs in 485 innings. He has thrown a whopping 18 complete games over the last two years. As a comparison, the Yankees’ entire pitching staffs have thrown just four complete games in that same span.
Similar to Santana, Halladay is playing out the last year of his contract, and the Blue Jays are unlikely to resign him after 2010. Furthermore, as the Twins were in 2007, the Blue Jays are living through their first off-season under a new General Manager. While Bill Smith inherited a healthy organization, Anthopoulos has his work cut out for him as he tries to compete with the big guns of the East while uncoupled Toronto from a few bad contracts.
So what, then, would a potential trade partner expect the Blue Jays to want, at least initially? For Anthopoulus, trading Halladay will be a defining moment of this off-season. He’ll be trading one of the best pitchers to throw in Toronto and big crowd favorite at a time when the team is hurting for attendance. He’ll need to recoup that investment while stocking up for the future. In that sense, I don’t see him settling for a package as weak as the one Minnesota received for Santana.
If I were a betting man, I’d guess that Anthopoulus would initially ask for Jesus Montero. At that point, Brian Cashman would hang up the phone. But the point remains: Toronto will need an impact, near-can’t miss prospect to give up Halladay right now. Since the Doc has but one year left on his contract, a team acquiring him may have to give up just one prospect, but it will be a costly one. Would Austin Jackson get the job done? Would the Yankees feel comfortable trading him? Does Toronto, as many others do, feel Jackson’s stock is low right now?
In writing about John Lackey last week, Joe mentioned how Halladay is a desired piece potentially available next winter. That, of course, is where the Yanks found themselves with Santana, but Johan never hit free agency. Brian Cashman will have to ask himself if he wants Halladay enough to pay in prospects and later in cash or if the team is willing to chance it and wait. Josh Beckett and Cliff Lee loom large in 2011 as well.
Right now, this is sheer speculation and the framework for a discussion on Halladay. The rumor mill is quiet in advance of the Winter Meetings, and teams are waiting to see how the market shakes down. When the Hot Stove warms up, Halladay will be front and center. Let’s see how the Yanks approach a big-name pitcher this time around.
That’s never happened before
Posted by: | CommentsUpdate: Once again, Baggarly is wrong. Thanks to commenter Alex for pointing it out. After escalators, Manny Ramirez was the highest paid player in 2004 and won the World Series. That’s twice now for Baggarly.
Because baseball loves its stats, and because the Elias Sports Bureau keeps every stat imaginable, we often hear off-beat statistical happenings. Player A is hitting .345 in the second half in night games, for instance. We also get historical milestones, such as, Player B was the first Panama-born player to record six straight outs in Game 6 of the World Series. Of the many that surfaced this year regarding the Yankees, one got more airtime than others: no team has won a World Series with a 35-year-old shortstop since 1955. Sure enough, it happened again in 2009.
The 2009 Yankees had another first-time-in-a-long-time milestone as well. According to Andrew Baggarly*, the last time the World Series champions also had the highest paid player in the game was the ‘86 Mets. They had Gary Carter at $2.8 million, less than a tenth of A-Rod’s 2009 salary. All of this is a friendly reminder to not think that just because something hasn’t happened in a while that there’s some causal reason for it.
Hat tip to Pinto for the pointers.
* I will never be able to hear Baggarly’s name and not think back to this report. He ran with an unconfirmed rumor that “Sabathia has declined the Yankees’ six-year, $140 million offer.” While that might have technically been true — Sabathia ended up signing for more — it was just horrible timing on Baggarly’s part. Cashman flew to San Francisco that very night and got to work on Sabathia’s contract.
The October (and November) of A-Rod
Posted by: | CommentsOne of the more obvious stories this October involved the redemption of Alex Rodriguez. Unfairly labeled a choker during the Yanks’ futile playoff runs over the last five seasons, A-Rod responded with an October for the ages. He hit .365/.500/.808 over 68 plate appearances with six home runs and 18 RBIs. He was probably the overall MVP of the playoffs, and the coverage has examined A-Rod’s complex relationship with, well, everyone.
In The Times, William Rhoden penned an excellent column on the redemption of A-Rod. After some shocking steroid revelations and Spring Training hip surgery, A-Rod was the black sheep of New York. But, as the narrative goes, he put that past behind him, toned down his Me-First approach to baseball and emerged a true team player.
Rhoden though questions those assumptions and that narrative. He points fingers at his fellow writers and reporters and wonders who exactly is responsible for the rehab of A-Rod.
Some speculated that it was the finality of his divorce, others that it was the tearful February news conference in Tampa with teammates looking on. Still others said the author of Rodriguez’s renaissance was Kate Hudson.
But A-Rod is not the one who has changed. He is the same guy. The Yankees’ lineup has changed. The addition of Mark Teixeira and Nick Swisher have made A-Rod more effective. The addition of the no-nonsense pitcher C. C. Sabathia and the effective A. J. Burnett has made the Yankees a tougher team over all.
The new view of Rodriguez is, on one level, a media-driven fan transformation that reached a peak heading into the postseason, when he suddenly began succeeding where he previously had failed.
Everyone loves redemption stories, but this transformation is more about fans’ desire to have a winning team than one man’s sea change. What’s troubling about the transformation story is that the root of it is winning. For all of our new, exciting ways of delivering games, one thing has remained constant: performance trumps just about everything. When it leads to profits, performance trumps everything.
Says Rhoden, “His clutch performances and now a championship have changed minds and attitudes.” He ends with quite the kicker as he wonders if A-Rod — formerly A-Fraud — was the phony or if the fans were or if the reporters were. It’s a question with no real answer, but I believe Rhoden speaks to the reporters and the talk radio hosts who kept pursuing the A-Fraud story and the fans who would boo him.
Today, Tyler Hissey at MVN’s Around the Majors began to answer Rhoden’s question. He eviscerated a Bill Madden column from February. The Daily News scribe alleged that for the Yanks to “remain true” to the organization’s “relentless pursuit of championships and the fierce protection of their brand,” in the wake of his steroid revelations, “they have no choice but to sever ties with Rodriguez.”
From an economics point of view, it never made sense to doubt A-Rod, and from a practical point of view, the Yankees weren’t going to cut ties with him. That doesn’t stop people such as Madden or Mike Francesa from blowing smoke. That doesn’t stop fans from booing him on an 0-for-4 day and toasting him after a six-home run effort en route to a World Series title.
Once upon a time, the narrative ruled A-Rod too expensive, too self-centered, too into his stats to win a World Series. Now that he has, A-Rod will just work toward his legacy. He has his ring; he has his championship; he has his great clutch October; and he has his fans. The Yankees have him now and for eight more seasons. For that, I will cheer him in redemption as I cheered him all year and since 2004.
Selig against expanding replay
Posted by: | CommentsBefore last night’s World Series game, before the bottom of the 7th ended with a controversial call and the top of the 8th ended with a flat-out wrong call, Bud Selig spoke to reporters about the state of baseball. Generally, he feels the game is strong, and fifteen years after a crippling labor strike, it is. He also addressed the increased use of technology in the game, and it is here that the Commissioner took a stance.
MLB commissioner Bud Selig said he has been soliciting outside opinion from managers and general managers over the past few weeks and said no one offered a good explanation why the umpiring was so bad in the first rounds of the postseason.
He also declined to call for further use of replay. “The more baseball people I talk to, there is a lot of trepidation about it and I think their trepidation is fair,” Selig told reporters before Game 2 of the World Series on Thursday. “I’ve spent a lot of time [on this] over the past month and will spend a lot of time in the ensuing months as well. I don’t want to overreact. You can make light of that but when you start to think you’re going to have more intrusions — and even if their good intrusions — it’s something that you have to be very careful about. Affecting the game on the field is not something I really want to do.”
Selig has not been quick to embrace new technology over baseball tradition, in part due to worries about the pace of games. “Life is changing and I understand that,” he said. “I do like the human element and I think the human element for the last 130 years has worked pretty well. There have been controversies but there are controversies in every sport.”
Let’s take the 7th inning last night. With two on and one out, Johnny Damon hit a sinking line drive toward Ryan Howard. The Phillies’ first baseman either scooped the ball on a short hop or caught it above the ground on a fly. The first base umpire, standing behind the play, hesitated and that signaled that Damon was out on a line drive. Howard, though, had already thrown to second, seemingly as if to start a double play. Replays seemed to show that the ball kicked up some dirt into Howard’s glove, but even under a fine microscope, it was an inconclusive review.
Here, the call wasn’t the first base umpire’s to make. Blocked by Ryan Howard, he couldn’t see the ball hit the ground or Howard’s glove. At least the umps conferred about the play and upheld the call. On the calls Joe explored a few weeks ago, those ranging from obvious to atrocious, there are no answers. The umpires were in position to make the right calls and simply did not.
I’ve long called for increased instant replay, and last night’s game showed a need for it. I hear Selig’s concerns, but in Game 1 the umpires conferred about the Robinson Cano double play. A video review of Howard’s scoop would have taken the same amount of time. The human element, as Selig called it, has been a part of the game because video replay technological was not available for much of baseball history. Now that it is, Major League Baseball should embrace it to an extent reasonable. When everyone sees the correct call 10 or 15 times on broadcasts and highlights reels, the game is doing itself no favors if it eschews the opportunity to get it right the first time.
An insight into Girardi’s managerial style
Posted by: | CommentsIn my younger and more vulnerable days, also known as high school, I was a catcher for my school’s baseball team. It wasn’t an easy job, but I loved it. I would go over the game plan with my pitchers and work with them through lineups we would see multiple times over the course of a season. By the end of my stint playing baseball in high school, I had a pretty good sense of how the other players in the league liked their pitches and how they didn’t, and I certainly could tell which pitchers preferred throwing what pitches in certain situations.
In professional baseball, the job of a catcher is far more complex. Although catchers have to be aware of the scouting reports and their opponent’s strengthens and weaknesses, they have a whole slew of pitchers they must shepherd through a grueling 162-game season. The preparation that goes into catching is immense. Backstops scour scouting reports and are often the manager’s and pitching coach’s eyes and ears on the field during games.
It is, then, little wonder that so many catchers become managers. In fact, three of the four teams currently left in the playoffs are helmed by former catchers, and a few days ago, Marc Carig explored just why catchers make good manager. As field generals, the catchers are just supposed to know baseball (which is why Jorge Posada’s gaffes last night were a bit surprising).
Carig’s piece on the whole is well worth the read. I want to highlight a selection concerning Joe Girardi:
Indeed, when looking back at his own experience, Girardi said catching helped prepare him for what he considers one of the most important parts of his job: handling pitchers. “As a catcher, that’s what you’re trying to do,” Girardi said. “You understand what you have in the bullpen, you understand which guys you’re going to use for which outs, how far you have to get your starter, who your starter matches up against, who you can’t let beat you.”
Dealing with pitchers, he said, developed the same skills he uses when handling the players on his roster.
“Different backgrounds, different nationalities, different personalities,” Girardi said. “You have to learn to handle all of them, relate to all of them. Learn to get the best out of them and that’s what you’re doing with your players.”
Over the last few days, Joe Girardi has come under fire for seemingly overmanaging his bullpen on Monday. He used David Robertson for all of 11 pitches in the 11th inning of a tie game and replaced him with the inferior Alfredo Aceves. Two batters later, the Angels had their first win of the ALCS.
But that game was Girardi’s first bullpen mistake of the postseason. In fact, he has now used relievers 30 times over the Yanks’ seven October games with fantastic results. In 23 innings, the Yanks’ pen has a 1.96 ERA. The bullpen has walked 10 and has struck out 21. As the Yanks go for the series win tomorrow, all pen hands will be deck.
Girardi, I believe, enjoys going to pen so much because, as a former catcher, he has confidence in his relievers. As he said, he knows which guys he wants to use for which outs and who can get certain opposing hitters out. It might infuriate us as fans to watch him use a lefty for one pitch only to replace him for another lefty, but so far, it’s worked. His approach may be a bit unorthodox, but the former catcher in Girardi certainly knows his pitchers.
The 2009 Yanks: A good time or a good ballclub?
Posted by: | CommentsAfter 168 games, we know a lot about the spirit of the Yankees. With Johnny Damon, Nick Swisher and A.J. Burnett around, they are a fun-loving club. Sure, the super-serious trio of Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter and, yes, Alex Rodriguez make up the core of their offensive club, but for the Yanks, the fun is why they’re winning. Or so goes the narrative.
At the end of last week, on the verge of the ALCS, the serious Wall Street Journal explored the Yanks’ fun side. The article is a bit incongruous; due to the Journal’s style guide leads to a whole bunch of references to Mr. Swisher and Mr Damon. But the point remains: It is because of the Yanks’ fun-loving ways that they are a good team. “Fun creates winning,” Swisher has said. “You’re looser when you’re having fun. Your true ability comes out, rather than being tense.”
Matthew Futterman and Austin Kelley explore this concept as it relates to the Yankees:
Since the 2003 World Series, the last one the Yankees appeared in, the team has gone about its business with the sober professionalism of a group of pall-bearers. In 2005, after the Yankees started the season 11-19, Mr. Torre told the New York Times, “There’s a lot of tension. One to 10, it’s probably an 8. You try to say things to loosen people up, you make jokes, and there’s required laughing. Nothing is spontaneous. This is our life.” To compound the pressure, there was always a chance that volcanic owner George Steinbrenner would threaten somebody’s livelihood.
Before this season, Mr. Girardi said he got the sense that this team might be different. “There was closeness that developed on the pitching staff,” Mr. Girardi said. Shortly after spring training began, Mr. Girardi noticed that Mr. Burnett was taking several of the other pitchers on outings in the afternoons and evenings. Mr. Sabathia was taking teammates to Orlando Magic games. “Just seeing these guys through the first couple weeks in the spring, I knew it was going to be a real laid-back and relaxed atmosphere,” he said.
As the season began, despite the pressure of christening the new Yankee Stadium—and the distraction of a steroids scandal involving Mr. Rodriguez—the light mood prevailed. On May 15, after beating the Twins with a two-out, walk-off single, Melky Cabrera was getting ready for a postgame TV interview when Mr. Burnett snuck up behind him and smeared a towel full of whipped cream on his face. Two days later, after three consecutive walk-off wins, that day’s hero, Johnny Damon, was so worried about getting a pie that Mr. Burnett had to sneak up on him by hiding behind a teammate. “A.J. has been a big part of the looseness of the clubhouse,” Mr. Girardi said. “His attitude is great. He brings a lot of energy every day.”
That’s all well and good, right? But when it comes down it, the Yankees won this year because they hit .283/.362/.478 with a franchise-record 244 home runs as their pitchers put up a 4.28 ERA and led the AL in strike outs. I’m often skeptical of the narrative that fun leads to winning. Generally, as I’ve learned from the teams I’ve been on, winning leads to fun and not the other way around. I’ve been on bad teams that have fun, but my teammates on the good ones always got along better.
What if, though, there is some truth to the theory that players perform better when they are more or less relaxed? The Journal reporters took a look at some of the sports psychology studies on the make up of athletes and found some support for the belief that players having fun perform better:
Research shows that heightened anxiety causes athletes’ muscles to tighten and decreases their mental focus. “The classic example is when someone freezes from stress,” said Daniel Gould, a sports-psychology professor at Michigan State and co-author of “Understanding Psychological Preparation for Sport: Theory and Practice of Elite Performers.” “In sports, you don’t see people freeze, but an athlete that’s a little tight might miss the plate by a hair.”
Not all athletes play their best when they’re relaxed. “It’s like each of us has our own temperature we perform best at,” Prof. Gould said, “and you have a thermostat. You learn to psych yourself up if you’re not up enough, and you learn how to cool off a little if you’re too hot.” But for the most part, psychologists say, professional athletes need to keep stress levels down. “Having a relaxed clubhouse is good,” Mr. Gould said.
So there you have it. Conclusive proof that some players perform better when relaxed and some do not. I enjoy seeing the Yankees have fun because I have more fun. We all love watching Burnett — Mr. Burnett — pie another teammate. In the end, though, the Yanks have won 108 games this year because they are a very good team, relaxed clubhouse or not.
Should MLB exercise more direct control over umpires?
Posted by: | CommentsAfter a few questionable umpiring calls in the LDS round, we saw another controversy on Saturday night. Erik Aybar did what he does on nearly every double play: got his feet within a few inches of the bag at second and threw to first. Second base umpire Jerry Layne thought he strayed a little too far on the Jorge Posada grounder, and Melky Cabrera was safe at second base. It brings into question how to deal with standard umpiring fare. The neighborhood play isn’t in the rulebook, so how can MLB ensure that its umpires are making the right call in each instance?
Matt Pouliot of NBC Sports tells the story of the neighborhood play’s origins, though it only takes a little critical thought to figure it out. Runners are sliding hard into second in order to hinder the relay throw and break up the double play. The second baseman or shortstop already faces the disadvantage of throwing with one foot on the base and one foot on the dirt. The neighborhood play allows them to throw on firm ground, presumably reducing injury risk.
Pouliot thinks that the best way to fix the situation is to reign in the baserunners. No oversliding the bag, no forearm shots when popping up on the bag, no sliding three feet wide of the bag to take out the shortstop. The problem with that is of penalty, as Steve S, b/k/a The Artist says. The runner at second is typically out anyway. That leaves two options: ejection or automatically calling the batter out. Steve thinks the former is draconian, and I agree. Why put that much power in the umps’ subjective hands? To the latter, it would be assuming the double play, which is something baseball tries to avoid. There doesn’t seem to be a good solution here.
I agree with Steve that the neighborhood play is just fine as is. It protects the shortstops and second basemen while still allowing for aggressive baserunning. He concludes by saying that the umps need to “try to make it look good.” That relates to what former commissioner Fay Vincent wrote in the New York Times. It’s a story of the relationship between MLB and its umpires, which is not a lot. MLB doesn’t even have a hand in umpiring schools. There seems to be an opportunity here.
Robot umpires would not be a popular change. Complain as we do about the umpires, it seems that most people still prefer the men in blue (or black) over an automated counterpart. How, then, can MLB ensure that it has the best quality umpires, so these bad calls do not persist? Vincent has an idea.
From the beginning, umpiring has been seen by those who run baseball as a necessary but marginal aspect of the game. Major League Baseball does not train its own umpires, and therefore it has not established practices that would attract the best people. Those who wish to enter the profession attend schools run by former umpires. But these are entirely private businesses; the commissioner of baseball doesn’t control the curriculum, manage the training or do anything to lure people of all races and ethnic groups to become umpires.
After graduation, new umpires seek jobs with the minor leagues, which hire and fire officials separately from the major leagues. The beginning salary for a junior umpire is about $9,500 for the five-month season, hardly a living wage. A young umpire may spend as many as 10 years in the minors, earning at most about $20,000 at the Triple-A level and scratching around for other work during the off-season.
To attract the kind of young people any business would want, Major League Baseball should establish a thoroughly professional training system for umpires — and ensure that every official it hires is up to the job.
Taking ownership of the umpires would do MLB a world of good. They can use their resources to attract more umpires and then train them better. Even more importantly, they can train them in a uniform manner, so everyone has the same body of knowledge. Everyone is trained the same way. It should make for a more consistent umpiring experience.
If MLB has any intention of doing this, the time is now. Many veteran umpires are missing from this postseason because of injuries. This isn’t to say that all of the injured are old and breaking down, but that’s certainly the case for some. When these umpires hang it up, who will replace them? MLB has a vested interest in the performances of its umpires, and should ensure that the umpires who replace their most experienced veterans are capable of mind, body, and vision.
No one wants to complain about umpires, at least no one I know. They should be in the background, officiating a game between players and teams. MLB would do well to put more of its resources to work in recruiting and training umpires. It will make for a smoother, less controversial game, which is what I hope all of us want. I don’t think anyone wants to look at a playoff schedule and cringe because Marty Foster is the crew chief.
Where have you gone, Johnny Damon?
Posted by: | CommentsThrough the first five months of the season, Johnny Damon was sitting pretty. Playing out the last year of his Yankee contract, Damon was putting up a career year, and on Sept. 2, he was hitting .293/.373/.524. He had tied his career high in home runs with 24 and seemed destined to reach the quarter century mark.
Since then, though, it’s been one long slump for Johnny Damon. He ended the regular season on a 17-for 79 slide and hit just .215/.319/.278 over his last 92 plate appearances. He struck out 17 times, knocked out just five extra-base hits and never reached 25 home runs.
This poor offensive play has continued into the playoffs. Against the Twins, Johnny Damon seemed lost at the plate. He went 1 for 12 and struck out four times against Carl Pavano and the Twins’ pen last night. By his fourth at-bat, some Yankee fans were wondering if Brett Gardner deserves a start. Of course, Damon has more power potential than Gardner, but during the regular season, Damon’s play would probably earn him a mental health day off.
Generally, I wouldn’t be too worried about a 100-plate appearance slump. Damon is in one now, and it’s probably just a matter of time before he breaks out in a big way. But two aspects to Johnny Damon — his contract status and his willingness to play through injuries — makes me wonder if we should put some more stock into this slump.
As much as it is a cliché, Johnny Damon is a gritty player. He hates to sit, and he doesn’t share injuries with everyone. He’ll play through sore legs, a sore back, sore anything. Usually, we can tell when Damon is hurt because it impacts his performance, and he plays as he has been lately. His swings are late; he flails in the field; his game just isn’t on.
Meanwhile, Damon is also playing for a contract. He turns 36 in a few weeks, and Damon has seen the market for 36-year-old outfielders. He saw Bobby Abreu settle for a deal significantly lower than he expected, and he knows that he’ll be up against Matt Holliday, Jason Bay and Abreu on the free agent market this winter. He needs to play, and he needs to perform to prove his worth.
Finally, we arrive too at the Yankees’ specific aspect of this story. Although the Yankees’ players are focused on beating the Angels to reach the World Series, the Yankees’ Front Office knows that, shortly after the World Series ends, the free agent frenzy begins. The team will have to decide whether or not to re-sign their own free agents, and the Yankee brass may be gearing up to make a choice between Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui. Do they put stock into Matsui’s late-season surge and Damon’s late-season swoon? Do they look to get younger in left while retaining Matsui as a DH? Do they jettison the creaky-kneed Hideki while keeping Damon, the guy who has expressed a keen desire to stay in the Bronx?
Damon’s poor play of late isn’t making this decision any easier than it was, and it must gnaw at him to know that everyone is watching and evaluating and determining his future for him. For now, I hope last night’s Golden Sombrero is the end of his struggles. The Yankees will need his power at the plate and his speed on the bases for their ALCS match-up against the Angels.
What it meant to be there
Posted by: | CommentsOn July 4, 1983, my parents were listening to the radio with their three-month-old son. It was a Monday afternoon, and Dave Righetti was on the mound for the Yanks. For nine innings, he dazzled the Sox, and his final line — 9 innings, no hits — was one for the ages. I don’t remember it, but that’s the day I became a baseball fan.
I started going to games when I was three or four and remember bits and pieces of my early years of baseball fandom. I loved going into Stan’s to get a new team hat. I collected yearbooks and learned how to keep score when I was six. I saw Bo Jackson break his bat and heard the news when George Steinbrenner was suspended. I watched the Yankees finish seventh in the AL East and followed the exploits of Wade Taylor, Scott Kamieniecki and Jeff Johnson as though they were actually good.
At some point in the mid-1990s, baseball stopped being something I enjoyed as a kid and began to be something akin to a religion. I soaked up games, stats, insight into baseball. I lived and died with the Yankees. A victory would brighten my mood until the next day while a loss would be heartbreaking. I still live and die through the Yanks that way.
In 1996, everything started going our way. After the crushing defeat in the 1995 ALDS, the Yankees began a magical run in Joe Torre’s first year at the helm and Derek Jeter’s first year at short. After a hiccup in 1997, the Yankees simply never lost in October. They ran through the Padres, the Braves, the Mets, the Rangers, the A’s, the Mariners, the Indians. Nothing — until Luis Gonzalez hit a perfectly placed ball past a drawn-in infield — could stop them.
As Gonzalez’s ball landed, the spell broke. Mystique and Aura would return for a night in October in 2003 when the Yankees rallied against Pedro Martinez and Aaron Boone became the next unlikely star amidst a series of frustrating postseasons. We know how 2004 turned out, how 2005 ended with a collision in center field, how 2006 was just ugly, how 2007 bugged us and how 2008? Well, last year, there was no October.
This year, though, the team stormed into the postseason with 103 wins, and when I had a chance to buy a ticket for Friday’s game, I leaped. Even though the ticket was a standing-row only spot behind section 229 down the third base line, I took the chance. I hadn’t seen a post-season game in person since Mike Mussina lost to Justin Verlander. It was time to get to the stadium.
The electricity coursed through the crowd on Friday from the start. Reggie received a warm welcome for the first pitch, and by 6:07 p.m., Yankee Stadium was stuffed to the gills. We roared at A.J. Burnett’s first-pitch strike and hung on every pitch. When A.J. threw a strike, the crowd went nuts. When a Yankee batter drew a ball, the crowd went nuts. 50,006 fans — the largest crowd at Yankee Stadium this year — came expecting a win.
For 11 innings, the Yankees made it tough. The Twins had runners on in every inning, and every Yankee reliever gave up a hit or a walk. We kept waiting with nervous anticipation for the Twins to get that big hit, but it never came. Meanwhile, the Yanks mustered nothing against Nick Blackburn.
After the steady Phil Hughes and the great Mariano Rivera faltered a bit in the 8th, the crowd noticeably deflated. Ten minutes later, the energy was back. Mark Teixeira ripped a single, and we wanted A-Rod. Alex delivered with a booming home run, 433 feet into the night. The crowd was bouncing; the stadium was shaking; and I high-fived people I had never seen before.
As the extra innings battle waged, the atmosphere grew tense. The Twins had bases loaded, no body out, and David Robertson, two weeks removed from an injury, was pitching for our lives. I paced back and forth, discovering that standing room certainly had that advantage over the tight seats of the tier. A line drive, and my heart dropped. But Teixeira snared it for an out. A ground ball, but Teixeira came home for an out. A fly ball, but right into the mitt of Brett Gardner. I had never been so nervous at a game, and somehow, the Yanks were alive.
Mark Teixeira made it all better. With one swing of the bat, one twirl of the umpire’s hand, one ball into the left field stands, the tense emotion of watching the game unfold disappeared. I leaped; I took a few deep breathed; and I just stood there to watch. I couldn’t move as the Yanks celebrated at the plate. I didn’t leave until Frank finished two verses, until the highlights played on the big screen and A.J. delivered the customary pie.
After suffering through the heart attack 11th inning, Teixeira brought upon a baseball euphoria that made it all worth it. Tears of joy were streaming down fans’ faces, and I started walking out of the stadium after one of — if not the — best games I had ever seen in person. This was October. This was baseball.
Why don’t they have a straight-on center field camera?
Posted by: | CommentsWhen we’re watching a baseball game from home, for the most part it’s from a center field camera. The only problem is that it’s not quite dead center. Instead the camera comes in at an angle, skewing our view of the action. It’s the main reason why so many fans at home get upset over ball and strike calls.
Why is the camera offset rather than dead center? I’ll let this nifty video explain.
I have nothing to add, other than a vocal desire to see the Yankees implement a dead center primary camera next year.
