2009 Yankees Game Thread

[yankees228]

Bad call there to strike Jeter out.

[TheKilo]

Depends on your difference between very good and great

 

edit - to a700

[yankees228]

This teams execution with a runner at third and less than two outs is pretty pathetic.

[yankees228]

STOP TRUSTING JOSE VERAS IN CLOSE GAMES.

 

EDIT: Tomko or Aceves against RHH late in close games. Call someone else up to serve as the long man. Those guys are two of their best options, and they shouldn't be relegated to be long men. One of the main reasons the bullpen got the job done yesterday was that they were both used.

[a700hitter]

So per your argument' date=' since Damon is a good "No. 1 or 2 hitter", playing him at first would retain his offensive value?[/quote']Power hitters play 1st or third, because of their lack of mobility, and 1B and 3B don't require much mobility to play. They don't play 1b or 3B because they are inherently power positions. I believe that to be nonsense. Several CF's and SS have been able to hit for power, but they had speed to play the position. There have been some very good 1B and 3B were not big power hitters, e.g Wade Boggs, Al Oliver, Bill Buckner. They played 1B and 3B because they didn't have the mobility to play CF and SS, but they were still excellent offensive players. Damon wouldn't play 1B because he has the speed to cover an OF position. His speed adds a dimension to his offense that Boggs, Oliver and Buckner did not have.

[TheKilo]

You're describing the exceptions, not the rules.

[a700hitter]

You're describing the exceptions' date=' not the rules.[/quote']There is no rule.

[TheKilo]

There is no rule.

 

Yes, there is.

[a700hitter]

Yes' date=' there is.[/quote']

State the rule.

[yankees228]

Joe Girardi can be so terrible about managing the bullpen. How do you stick with Ramirez here against Mauer, with Coke ready?

[Dipre]

Power hitters play 1st or third' date=' because of their lack of mobility, and 1B and 3B don't require much mobility to play. They don't play 1b or 3B because they are inherently power positions. I believe that to be nonsense. Several CF's and SS have been able to hit for power, but they had speed to play the position. There have been some very good 1B and 3B were not big power hitters, e.g Wade Boggs, Al Oliver, Bill Buckner. They played 1B and 3B because they didn't have the mobility to play CF and SS, but they were still excellent offensive players. Damon wouldn't play 1B because he has the speed to cover an OF position. His speed adds a dimension to his offense that Boggs, Oliver and Buckner did not have.[/quote']

 

So then why are Adam Dunn and Pat Burrel COFs and not 1B or 3B?

 

Your argument holds no water.

 

There are positional standards by which players are measured.

 

A corner outfielder that does not provide in the power department will not be considered a good offensive performer, and that is Ichiro's case as well, since it has been stated many a time that, aleit a very good leadoff hitter, Ichiro does not measure up to the offensive standards of a COF position, exceptions are made, such as Chone Figgins at 3rd and the aforementioned Ichiro at right, and although their value to their teams are high, the objective quantification of their production as per the league average will tell you that they are below average at the position.

 

I think what you're showing is a case of sour grapes over the FO letting Damon walk, however, i bet you'd be one of the first ones jumping the FO anyway had they kept Damon at a price similar to what the Yankees paid him due to his defensive ineptitude and sub-standard offensive positional value had he been moved to a corner at Fenway.

[Cocos Disciples]

Stop playing the Twins, thanks.

[a700hitter]

There are positional standards by which players are measured.

 

I think what you're showing is a case of sour grapes over the FO letting Damon walk' date=' however, i bet you'd be one of the first ones jumping the FO anyway had they kept Damon at a price similar to what the Yankees paid him due to his defensive ineptitude and sub-standard offensive positional value had he been moved to a corner at Fenway.[/quote']Here's some COFers without power: Pete Rose, Ricky Henderson, Tony Gwynn, Tim Raines and on and on. They had value. They were great leadoff hitters. This has nothing to do with sour grapes. Damon couldn't play CF anymore and he wasn't going to displace Manny in LF, nor does he have the arm to play RF, so he would have had no place on the Sox. Many predicted that his offensive production would decline precipitously due to age and injury. It has not. In some aspects, his offensive production has improved. Is it your argument that his offensive production has declined merely due to his change of defensive position? That seems ridiculous to me.

[jacksonianmarch]

Joe Girardi can be so terrible about managing the bullpen. How do you stick with Ramirez here against Mauer' date=' with Coke ready?[/quote']

 

I understood going after Mauer without Coke. Edwar's changeup is a great weapon vs lefties. Problem being, Edwar's complete lack of location is a detriment to everything. What I could not understand was using Veras with 2 men on. Veras is completely lost. Putting him into this game was inexcuseable.

[Dipre]

Here's some COFers without power: Pete Rose' date=' Ricky Henderson, Tony Gwynn, Tim Raines and on and on. They had value. They were great leadoff hitters. This has nothing to do with sour grapes. Damon couldn't play CF anymore and he wasn't going to displace Manny in LF, nor does he have the arm to play RF, so he would have had no place on the Sox. Many predicted that his offensive production would decline precipitously due to age and injury. It has not. In some aspects, his offensive production has improved. [b']Is it your argument that his offensive production has declined merely due to his change of defensive position? That seems ridiculous to me.[/b]

 

Lol @ strawman.

 

His offense had remained steady.

 

What has changed, is the perception of the quality of his production based on positional standards.

 

Henderson, Gwynn and Raines, like Ichiro, have such outstanding tools that they could've even been played at 1st base and might still have made the Hall.

 

However, you do know they don't fit the mold of prototypical COFs, and, besides that, comparing them to the overabundance of awesome that is Johnny Damon really has no value, you'd be better off comparing him to the likes of Juan Pierre and Denard Span, and you'll understand what i mean.

[jacksonianmarch]

Wow. Coke is really trying to give this f***ing game away

[a700hitter]

Lol @ strawman.

 

His offense had remained steady.

 

What has changed, is the perception of the quality of his production based on positional standards.

 

Henderson, Gwynn and Raines, like Ichiro, have such outstanding tools that they could've even been played at 1st base and might still have made the Hall.

 

However, you do know they don't fit the mold of prototypical COFs, and, besides that, comparing them to the overabundance of awesome that is Johnny Damon really has no value, you'd be better off comparing him to the likes of Juan Pierre and Denard Span, and you'll understand what i mean.

Strawman? His offensive production has stayed the same or improved, but you argue that a change of position has decreased his offensive value. It's hard to follow the logic. You think that Damon is comparable to Juan Pierre? This too is ridiculous. Damon will have about 2,400 hits, 1000 RBI, 1500 Runs, 200 HRs, and .793 OPS by the end of this season. Have you checked Pierre's stats recently?

[yankees228]

I understood going after Mauer without Coke. Edwar's changeup is a great weapon vs lefties. Problem being' date=' Edwar's complete lack of location is a detriment to everything. What I could not understand was using Veras with 2 men on. Veras is completely lost. Putting him into this game was inexcuseable.[/quote']

 

I don't want Ramirez facing Mauer, when you have your lefty ready in the bullpen. The only lefty he faced up to that point in the inning, he gave up a home run anyway. I think Major League Baseball, after Ramirez's run of scoreless innings last year, has figured him out.

 

As for the 9th, Coke got pretty lucky. The 3-2 pitch to Redmond was clearly ball 4. I'll take it though.

[Dipre]

Strawman? His offensive production has stayed the same or improved' date=' but you argue that a change of position has decreased his offensive value. It's hard to follow the logic. You think that Damon is comparable to Juan Pierre? This too is ridiculous. Damon will have about 2,400 hits, 1000 RBI, 1500 Runs, 200 HRs, and .793 OPS by the end of this season. Have you checked Pierre's stats recently?[/quote']

 

Oh brother.

 

Arguing with you is useless.

 

If you really think Damon is comparable to Rickey Henderson and Tony Gwynn top of the lineup COFs, then so be it, but you're living in a fantasy world.

[Gom]

I finally got to see a game in this streak. Every homer but the one hit by the Twins would have been gone at the old stadium. What a bomb by Tex, the 2nd homer. Nice night at the stadium.

[a700hitter]

Oh brother.

 

Arguing with you is useless.

 

If you really think Damon is comparable to Rickey Henderson and Tony Gwynn top of the lineup COFs, then so be it, but you're living in a fantasy world.

I never said that I was comparing Damon to Rickey Henderson or Gwynn. I used them as prominent examples of COFers that were not power hitters, without drawing a comparison. You suggested that I was making a comparison to them and then you suggested that I should compare Damon to Pierre, which i think is ridiculous. Damon has a very good chance of ending his career with 3000 hits, 1800+ runs, 1200-1300 RBI, 250+ HRs and 400 SBs. Those are borderline HOF numbers. I am not comparing him to Gwynn or Henderson, but he is a pretty good offensive player, and he is far superior to Juan Pierre. I can understand your frustration at arguing with me as your arguments are specious and poorly reasoned and I insist on pointing it out to you. Damon's offensive production has remained at his pre-2006 level or improved over the last four years. Yet , you argue that it has actually declined because he changed defensive position. That argument doesn't hold water.

[jacksonianmarch]

If Damon ends up with the above numbers, he'll have a bust in the HOF

[a700hitter]

If Damon ends up with the above numbers' date=' he'll have a bust in the HOF[/quote']Only if he moves back to CF.

[jacksonianmarch]

The numbers he's putting up this season are fantastic at any position. .322/.390/.616. Thats a 1.006OPS, a number that would have led the AL last season. And he truly became a full time LFer last yr, when he put up an .836OPS with 29 steals and 95 runs scored. Prior to that, he was a full time CFer for the most part. So, while his value may have diminished since he's moved to LF, his production has actually improved.

[ORS]

a700, you are missing the point on the positional argument.

 

Suppose a player is going to hit .300/.370/.490, and he's going to do it every year. Your argument is that since he's the same every year, then he loses nothing in terms of offensive value. This is wrong. He loses nothing in terms of offensive "production", but "value" is another matter, one in which the position a player fields has relevance, because value is relative, so you have too compare to averages.

 

Now, suppose he's going to be playing CF for your team. With that offensive line, he's well above average for the position. Move him to 1B and he comes back to the pack. The team no longer gets above average production from a premier position and instead gets closer to average production from a position where it's easier to find a bat. This is the lost value.

[BoSox21]

He loses nothing in terms of offensive "production", but "value" is another matter, one in which the position a player fields has relevance, because value is relative, so you have too compare to averages.

 

I see where you're coming from but say the Yankees went out and got Hanley, who hits 30+ HRs out of the shortstop position. Damon doesn't lose any offensive value because his numbers are more pedestrian for LFers than CFers since the value is being made up at a less conventional position for power.

[a700hitter]

a700, you are missing the point on the positional argument.

 

Suppose a player is going to hit .300/.370/.490, and he's going to do it every year. Your argument is that since he's the same every year, then he loses nothing in terms of offensive value. This is wrong. He loses nothing in terms of offensive "production", but "value" is another matter, one in which the position a player fields has relevance, because value is relative, so you have too compare to averages.

 

Now, suppose he's going to be playing CF for your team. With that offensive line, he's well above average for the position. Move him to 1B and he comes back to the pack. The team no longer gets above average production from a premier position and instead gets closer to average production from a position where it's easier to find a bat. This is the lost value.

I don't think I am missing anything here. His offensive production is what it is. It does not diminish because of a change of defensive position. What might change is his market value, because he may be playing a position that has a larger supply of big offensive producers. That is just a product of economics laws of supply and demand. My argument has never been about his market value and whether or not his market value has changed. His production has not declined. It has improved in some aspects. That is what I have been saying. Lots of people expected his offensive production to decline due to age and injury, not due to relative market values of COFersb and CFers. They were wrong. He is a still a very highly productive offensive player.

[ORS]

I see where you're coming from but say the Yankees went out and got Hanley' date=' who hits 30+ HRs out of the shortstop position. Damon doesn't lose any offensive value because his numbers are more pedestrian for LFers than CFers since the value is being made up at a less conventional position for power.[/quote']

Maybe as a team they net out to zero because one player picks up the slack, but I'd be hard pressed to accept an evaluation method where players get credits or demerits based on their teammates.

[ORS]

I don't think I am missing anything here. His offensive production is what it is. It does not diminish because of a change of defensive position. What might change is his market value' date=' because he may be playing a position that has a larger supply of big offensive producers. That is just a product of economics laws of supply and demand. My argument has never been about his market value and whether or not his market value has changed. His production has not declined. It has improved in some aspects. That is what I have been saying. Lots of people expected his offensive production to decline due to age and injury, not due to relative market values of COFersb and CFers. They were wrong. He is a still a very highly productive offensive player.[/quote']

This is not what you communicate here. You do correctly state that the production is unchanged, but your follow up conflates production and value.

His offensive production has stayed the same or improved, but you argue that a change of position has decreased his offensive value. It's hard to follow the logic.

If the first quote is what you really think about production and value, then the second quote isn't that hard to follow as you state.

 

Keep in mind, the scale of value can be anything. In terms of offensive "value", it could be runs, like VORP. In terms of market value, it could be money. Don't sidetrack this by saying were just talking about the $$, because the $$ is based on what they do on the field relative to their peers.

[a700hitter]

Don't sidetrack this by saying were just talking about the $$' date=' because the $$ is based on what they do on the field relative to their peers.[/quote']In my initial post, I was very straightforward in addressing his consistent, if not improving, offensive production. The concept of relative value whether it be market value or some other measure of value relative to his peers was not addressed. Whether he has a declining market value takes into account many factors, but it doesn't diminish his offensive production. With regard to other measures of value relative to peer groups, what would be his peer group: COFers or lead off and Number 2 hitters? Against the latter group, his value has probably remained steady if not improved.