Almost immediately, the subheadline has me worried.

Close losses indicative of experienced, talented team that wants to win

"Close losses indicative of...team that wants to win?" Most teams don't want to win? You can tell by these close losses that a team wants to win, say, more than any other team? More than, like, a team that's been winning? The hell? Wait -- experienced and talented too? There's so much going on in that one phrase, my head is spinning.

Must be a mistake. MSNBC must've thrown some 22-year-old intern a bone, letting him fill in the subheadline that Celizic forgot to include. The intern probably skimmed the article, totally misunderstood what was being written, and submitted this copy to his editor without thinking it through. He was still kind of stoned from last night, didn't get much sleep, and to be honest, was really thinking more about his girlfriend and whether her irrational fanaticism for the band Jawbreaker will be the proverbial camel-straw in their relationship.

So, that explains it. I mean, not even Mike Celizic could possibly think that losing close games exhibits talent, a desire to win, or whatever it is they harvest from those magic fucking beanstalks in pinstriped fields, fertilized by Steinbrenner's --

This edition of the Yankees isn’t going to stagger through the first couple months of the season like last year’s team did.

Mike, I'm trying to ramble, here. Could I just...? Thanks. Okay.

Like I was saying, not even the moldy brain of Mike Celizic could produce a notion as astronomically retarded as --

You can see that already, not in the two big wins in which they scored 25 runs, but in the four losses that leave them in last place.

Hypothetical 22-year-old intern, you're off the hook. Celizic is at it again.

Now, before I go any further, the truth is, I agree with some of what Celizic's saying. Teams that lose many close games and win in blowouts are likely to see more wins in their future. (Pyth W-L rec, etc. -- you've heard it all before.) And like Celizic, I don't see the Yankees continuing to lose at this pace. (For that matter, you have to wonder how many people really think the first 5 or 6 games are any real sort of indication of how good the Yanks will be over the whole course of the year.)

Of course, Celizic can't just chalk up his prediction to runs scored and runs allowed -- he's got more in mind. Remember, those close losses showed Celizic that this team "wants to win."

Scoring 15 runs in their first game probably didn’t help, serving to make the hitters try for even bigger totals instead of just going with the flow; giving them a false sense of their own omnipotence. Add to that the pressure of George Steinbrenner sending them off into the season by stating flatly that the 2006 Yankees would win the World Series this year, and you have all the ingredients for a couple of lost series.

Of course. The-First-Game-Gave-Me-The-Impression-That-We-Could-Just-Spend-The-Whole-Season-Padding-Our-Stats
Syndrome. That old chestnut.

The problem wasn’t a lack of effort, but too much of it.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, Celizic believes that the reason the Yankees will start winning is because eventually they will start trying less hard. Don't get me wrong -- I think the effects of effort in baseball are pretty overestimated, but is he really suggesting that the Yankees will benefit from not trying so hard to, what, hit home runs?

The good news for the Yankees is that it’s easy to choke a short series, but impossible to choke a full season. Sooner or later, when you play six days a week for six months, you just say, “screw it” — or words to that effect — and go out and play the game.

The first part I can live with. Again, a reference to Expected (PYTH) W-L Records might be useful. But, I mean, this is Mike Celizic we're talking about, so let's not get hysterical.

But that's not why Celizic likes the Yankees' chances of rebounding. He thinks that soon, they'll say "screw it," or something similar, and this utterance -- perhaps indirectly -- will lead to more victories. In other words, MC fans, they haven't been winning because they haven't been "go[ing] out and play[ing] the game."

Last year at this time, I was already writing that the Yankees were in trouble. Though they won the division, I was right.

"Last year, I predicted that 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie' would win the Oscar for Best Picture. Though 'Crash' won, I was right."

Bonus: Celizic also predicted that Hideki Matsui, not A-Rod, would win the 2005 AL MVP.
Double Bonus: April 7, 2005: Mariano Rivera is finished.
I Can't Help Myself Bonus: Celizic says Clemens will leave Astros by end of 2005.


I know they’re not a 2-4 team, and they won’t sleep-walk through the first couple of months like they did last year.

So, bottom line. This year, the Yankees' problem is trying too hard. Last year, their problem was somnambulism.

Current rating: 1.5 [out of 5 stars] by 4 users.

Too high.

What is wrong with Mike Celizic?

There are literally one hundred billion negative things you can say about Barry Bonds, but this has to be one of the dumbest.

"[I]n saying that he’s not coming back until next year, he’s finally told the truth about himself and his priorities.

There no longer can be any doubt. For Bonds, it’s about the record.

If it were about the team and a shot at the playoffs this year, he’d volunteer for pinch-hitting duty. He’s not doing that."

All right, Mike Celizic, let's take a look at Barry's team and their "shot at the playoffs." This season, the San Francisco Giants are a complete mess. They are 14 games under .500, 5.5 games out of first in the NL West, a division where the Padres and D-Backs are tied for first with losing records. Their pitching has been awful (14th in the NL in ERA and WHIP, 12th in OPS). Their offense hasn't been much better (13th in runs, OPS, and TB). Are you seriously claiming that Barry Bonds and his maximum of one pinch hitting appearance per game will somehow magically make their entire offense and pitching staff reverse course and stop being awful? What's more, in this crazy universe where you live, if they did somehow make the playoffs, do you honestly think they'd have a chance against the Cards, Braves, or whoever wins the wild card?

"Bonds told MLB.com that his doctors have recommended that he not try to play this year. His right knee, which underwent three arthroscopic procedures in the first five months of the year and was attacked by a severe infection, is still swollen. Get it completely healthy, the doctors told him, and come back strong next year."

Okay, well, that seems like as good a reason as any for sitting out.

"Bonds is not known for taking advice, but he’s going with the doctors on this one."

What? You're criticizing Barry Bonds for taking the advice of doctors? Are you some kind of Christian Scientist or something? "Hey, Lou Gehrig. Sack up, guy. I don't care how rare that disease is. The least you can do is pinch hit every few days. Take one for the team." "Dave Dravecky, you incredible pussy. Stop whining about your amputated left arm. You still got the right one don't you? Pick up a friggin' bat."

"If the Giants can throw a few wins together, they could have a shot at the playoff position nobody seems to want. And if they could creep within a couple games of first in the next three weeks, Bonds could be the difference maker the rest of the way."

Fine. I will grant you that 5.5 games at the beginning of August is not an insurmountable lead. But please explain how Barry Bonds would be "the difference maker." And please make your answer as weird and indefensible as possible.

"He wouldn’t have to do much. Just sit on the bench and make opposing managers wonder if and when he’s going to go into the game to pinch hit. If he went to the plate just ten times over three or four weeks, hit a home run or two and worked a few walks, it changes everything, because the other guys have to juggle their pitching to protect against him. He wouldn’t even have to run. Send him up with orders: “Don’t run out ground balls or flies; let them throw you out. You’re not here to run, just to scare the bejabbers out of the guys in the other dugout.""

Oh dear lord. Mike Celizic, are you okay? Because you just claimed that with 10 PA over three weeks, Barry Bonds could cause the Giants to gain 6 games in the standings. I can just imagine opposing managers looking across the field, spotting Barry Bonds on his crutches and being absolutely paralyzed with fear, causing them to leave their pitcher in just long enough for Jason Ellison to rock his 5th homer of the year. And what the fuck is "bejabbers?"

"If it’s about the team, he waits and sees what happens [with the injury]. If it’s about the record, he says, “No way.”"

Not to quibble, but I would argue that what Barry is doing kind of is about the team. If the Giants were 10 games over .500, looking like they had a chance of going far in the playoffs, I don't think he would have packed it in. The fact is, the Giants don't have a legitimate shot this year. They may next year. If I'm Barry Bonds, I would be thinking "Why jeopardize my entire career for two months of trying to get a shitty team to the playoffs, where we'll get creamed?"

Yes, Barry Bonds is 12 homers from passing Ruth, and that is probably one of the reasons why he made this decision. And a lot of people are going to make a lot of speculations about other reasons. But it's pretty tough to argue that his decision is in any way dooming the Giants' season.

And I'm serious when I ask you, Mike Celizic. Are you okay?

Attention baseball fans! Prepare to have your beans completely and totally freaked! Intrepid caricature of a 1940s sportswriter Mike Celizic has arrived at a shocking, almost blasphemous hypothesis about the basbeall postseason. If you're not ready to question everything you have ever known to be true and good about the universe, please stop reading now.

Ready? Here goes.

Wild Card teams have a chance of succeeding in the playoffs.

I imagine you're pretty shaken up right now; I'll allow you a few moments to compose yourselves.

Seriously, where has this guy been for the last ten years that he thinks it is in any way revolutionary to suggest, as he does in his opening sentence, "Winning a division is no guarantee of winning the World Series or even getting to it."

Writing that sentence is about as controversial as saying "Just because you swing at a baseball doesn't mean you'll hit it." Or, perhaps more appropriately, "Wearing a ridiculous fedora in your MSNBC.com photograph is no guarantee you'll be able to write coherent baseball commentary."

It's mind boggling to me that a person who covers baseball for a living felt is was necessary to make this claim. What's more, he waits until the 8th paragraph to mention that THE LAST THREE WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS HAVE BEEN WILD CARDS.

Back to the article:

He talks about how the Marlins and Astros could be scary in the playoffs due to their pitching. Fair enough. I agree, I guess. But why did he have to include this gem: "It doesn’t really matter who the fourth starter is; he’ll be going against the other team’s No. 4 man and doesn’t have to be great."

I would love to see Mike Celizic manage a baseball team. "Well, we'll throw Dontrelle, Burnett, and Beckett out there, and then I think I might wanna pitch game 4. I mean, I've always wanted to, and it doesn't really matter anyway, since I'll probably be pitching against Jason Marquis."

He continues: "What’s more, wild card playoff teams have won the last three World Series, and two of those — the 2002 Angels and 2003 Marlins — did it with pitching. The other team — the 2004 Red Sox — had two great starters in Curt Schilling and Pedro Martinez, a couple others who rose to the occasion, and a lot of great hitting."

Umm, did you watch the 2004 World Series? Aside from the Game 1 slugfest, the Red Sox allowed 2, 1, and 0 runs. Do you mean they got to the World Series with great hitting? Because that's not what you said. Also, they had two great starters. You just said you only need three. Does your patented Crazyball system only work with three starters? I'm confused.

"But the wild card wasn’t a threat to win it all, not in the beginning. Until 2002, only one wild card team — the 1997 Marlins — ever won the World Series and only one other — the 2000 Mets — made it to the season’s final best-of-seven."

Wow! It took a whole TWO YEARS for a Wild Card team to win the World Series. I'm surprised they didn't just cancel the whole experiment after 1996, when the Wild Card Orioles lost to the Yankees in the ALCS in a series where they lost Game 1 to Jeffrey Maier.

Here are the facts. In the ten years since the WC was introduced, it has produced 4 WS champions, 6 league champions, and 12 teams that advanced to the LCS. I'd say WC teams have done okay.

Stay tuned for Mike Celizic's next column: "World Series Winner Will Likely Be a Professional Baseball Team."

Mike Celizic is wrong all the time. And the interesting thing about Mike Celizic and how he is wrong, is that he often explains his reasoning in a way that indicates that he knows he is wrong. It's very confusing.

To wit: here is his explanation for why Chris Carpenter should have won the Cy Young this year.

Get over the notion that Roger Clemens deserved his eighth Cy Young Award on the basis that he had the lowest ERA in 10 years and is as old as the Rocky Mountains and equally as admired.

Nice opening here -- a crazy run-on sentence, which also ascribes to people a belief I don't think they hold. I think most people held the notion that Roger Clemens deserved his eighth Cy Young on the basis that he had an awesome year. And comparing the amount he is admired to the amount the Rocky Mountains are admired is clumsy and bizarre.

The Cy Young Award goes to the best pitcher, not the most popular, not the one with the best human-interest sidebar nor the one who stands to get the most endorsement deals for hanging up another plaque.

Again, I think that there are plenty of people who simply believe Clemens was the best pitcher last year. I don't believe there were a lot of people who thought he should get the Cy Young Award because he is popular, or because they want him to get endorsement deals. (What does that even mean?)

And as much as I found what Houston Astros' Clemens did last season beyond belief, he wasn’t the National League’s best pitcher. That person would be Chris Carpenter, the St. Louis Cardinals ace who blossomed after seven years of underachievement into a starter who went 21-5 with a 2.83 ERA, seven complete games and four shutouts. And if it’s not Carpenter, it’s Dontrelle Willis of the Florida Marlins, the 2003 Rookie of the Year who rebounded this season after a sophomore slump to lead the NL in wins with 22.

But it’s not Clemens.

Now.

Solid arguments can of course be made for all three of these guys. Let's get this out of the way:

Carpenter: 241.2 IP, 204 H, 18 HR, 213/51 K/BB, 1.06 WHIP, .231 BAA. He went 21-5, 2.83.
Clemens: 211.1 IP, 151 H, 11 HR, 185/62 K/BB, 1.01 WHIP, .198 BAA. He went 13-8, 1.87.
D-Train: 236.1 IP, 213 H, 11 HR, 170/55 K/BB, 1.13 WHIP, .243 BAA. He went 22-10, 2.63.

To my eye, it's almost a wash. Carpenter and Willis get the slight nod in innings over Roger, but all three WHIPs are essentially identical, and superb. Carpenter wins in Ks, but Clemens's absurdly low hit total (probably party the result of good situational karma) deserves consideration. Clemens and Willis both allowed a ridiculous 11 HR. Really, any one of them is a good candidate. (I can't help but add that Johan Santana had a better year than all of them, and he didn't win his league's Cy, because... well, read my earlier post about Bartolo Colon. Neither here nor there.)

Let's see why Celizic favors Carpenter.

I’ll admit the arguments for Clemens are attractive, even if they’re not compelling. He rang up 1.87 ERA, which is the lowest since Greg Maddux fashioned a 1.63 ERA for the Atlanta Braves in 1995, when umpires were still giving him three or four inches outside the black on both sides of home plate... if the Cy were given to the best age-adjusted performance or the most impressive performance by a guy who uses a walker to get to the team bus, Clemens would be your man.

Why are you making fun of Roger Clemens's age? He's an unbelievable pitcher. Partly because of how old he is, but take his numbers and ascribe them to a guy half his age and they're still just as impressive. What point is Celizic trying to make here? Or is it just a lame joke?

But there’s a little problem with wins; Clemens had just 13 of them against eight defeats. His defenders will say quite accurately that the Rocket got less support from the Astros than Anna Nicole Smith would get from a Kleenex bra. They were shut out in seven of his starts, five of which ended in 1-0 scores, and handed him just 18 runs total in his first 11 starts.

If Clemens were still pitching for the New York Yankees, he would have won 20, but if a squirrel had longer ears and hind legs and a little powder-puff tail, it would be a rabbit. The game isn’t about ifs, it’s about numbers.

Please read that last sentence again.

So, Roger Clemens pitched well enough to win 20 games with a team that had a better offense. But the game isn't about ifs, it's about numbers. So, to put it another way: this game is about numbers, and if one thing -- that has nothing to do with numbers -- were different, Roger Clemens would have won the Cy Young.

Roger Clemens should not win the Cy Young award for individual achievement in pitching because of the failures of the other 24 guys on his team. Explain that. Imagine I run a world record-setting opening leg of a 4x100 relay. I blow everyone else away. Then the next guy stumbles and accidentally swallows the baton and poops in his pants and we lose. Am I a bad runner?

Although I think Carpenter was the man on the basis of start-to-finish consistency, I wouldn’t think it a horrible injustice if Willis were to win. Dontrelle did have one more win, 22 to 21 for Carpenter, and an ERA of 2.63, which was two-tenths of a run lower than Carpenter’s 2.83.

Dontrelle's bullpen was slightly better in his starts than Carpenter's bullpen was in his. So Dontrelle deserves...what? Points for being a good cheerleader? And Dontrelle's ERA was two-tenths of a run lower, which means that Carpenter gave up one extra earned run roughly every four or five starts.

Carpenter...was steady from start to finish — although he struggled somewhat in September —

Carpenter was always good. Except for a period of time when he was bad.

--and he anchored a staff for the National League’s winningest team. He’s a guy who spent six years in Toronto, never winning more than 12 games and putting up a winning record just twice.

Irrelevant.

Last year, he started to find his way with the Cardinals, going 15-5.

Irrelevant.

This year, he added six wins without adding any losses. He, and not Roger Clemens, deserved to be the NL Cy Young winner on Thursday.

Debatable. But not for any of the reasons you mentioned. Certainly not because he had more wins.

Labels: cy young award, HatGuy, mike celizic

Part I.

I never like to defend Alex Rodriguez. Mainly because he is kind of a dink. Kind-of-dink he may be, his skills on a baseball diamond are not really up for debate. He is wicked good at baseball. So when I read this, the big red "Bullshit Flag" I carry around with me at all times raised itself in the direction of MSNBC's Bob Cook.

I should note that the flag no longer exists, having burst into flames when Bob Cook wrote the following introductory paragraph:

Alex Rodriguez’s tortuous vascillating [sic] over whether he would play for the United States, the Dominican Republic or not play at all in the World Baseball Classic was the most drawn-out public display of indecision since Meat Loaf repeatedly begged Ellen Foley to “let me sleep on it” as she demanded “I gotta know right now” in “Paradise by the Dashboard Light.”

Wow. Just...wow.

His basic premise for this article, that the Dominican Republic should feel lucky that they won't have A-Rod to ruin their WBC chances by choking his AL MVP guts out all over their games against Italy or whatever, is flawed in two main ways.

1) It presupposes that A-Rod chokes in "important" situations. An easy argument to make if you are like Bob Cook and you fail to cite a single statistic in your entire article.
Before everyone jumps down my throat to remind me of his unmistakably chokey ALDS performance against Anaheim last year, and his not-really-all-that-chokey-when-you-look-at-the-numbers performance against Boston in 2004, I urge you to examine the slightly larger (yet still relatively small) sample size of A-Rod's career postseason numbers. Wait don't, because I'm about to do it for you.

G: 31
AVG: .305
OBP: .393
SLG: .534
HR: 6

Not so bad, right? On to the second way in which Bob Cook's premise is flawed.

2) It presupposes that the WBC is itself an important enough event that a poor performance would qualify as "choking." I'm sorry, but national pride nonwithstanding, isn't this an event where all pitchers will be on a strict pitch-count? Even if A-Rod does "choke" in these glorified exhibition games, is he really going to be villified in the press for it? I think no.

Part II.

It's been a while since everyone's least favorite fedora'd dunderhead, Mike Celizic sat down at his 1930s Underwood typewriter, lit up his whale-oil lamp, turned on the NBC Orchestra's Radio Hour and ranted about something nobody really cares about.

I'll give you the short version. Celizic thinks Barry Bonds has committed the ultimate act of selfishness by refusing to participate in the WBC. If this sounds familiar, it's because Celizic wrote almost the exact same article a few months ago, attacking Bonds for sitting out the rest of the Giants' more or less lost season.

Why does Mike Celizic say things like "He wants the record. The best way to do that is to concentrate on the regular season and to avoid anything that might cause injury" like it's something so unbelievably awful? Barry Bonds is on the cusp of breaking what might be the most iconic record in sports. Why do sportswriters with funny hats have such a hard time understanding why a 40+ year old guy who missed almost an entire season with very serious knee injuries would want to, I don't know, protect his knee? Especially when he has a very realistic chance at achieving baseball immortality?

Moreover, where are all the shots at all the other players who are skipping the WBC? Oh wait. That's right. Barry Bonds is the only player sitting this thing out.

Look, Mike, I agree with you. Barry Bonds is a jerk. Everyone knows that. He probably did steroids. So did a lot of other dudes. But also he might, barring injury, break Hank Aaron's career home run record. Isn't that more important than playing some inconsequential exhibition games aginst the Netherlands?

...goes to Mike Celizic, of MSNBC.

He wrote this article about Raffy Palmeiro. I agree with the general sentiment -- that Palmeiro is a little bit slimy for ratting on Tejada. I would add, if I were reporting on the story, that Palmeiro was probably asked, under oath, about everything that he had injected into his body, and if he had injected Tejada's B-12 shot into his body, he should probably have told them about it. Whatever. The point is, here's how Celizic ends his article:

They say you don’t know a person’s true character until he faces adversity. Well, Palmiero has faced adversity, and he’s come up lacking in every way possible. Once known as a nice guy, he’s proved to be a rat and a slimeball, a guy who would try to smear an innocent teammate to save his own worthless butt.

Sing it, Mike! Now, take us home!

Get out of the game now, Raffy, and stay out. And good luck finding something to do with the rest of your life. I hear O.J. Simpson needs golf partners.

That, my friends, is the definition of hyperbole. Mike Celizic is equating, essentially, taking steroids and murdering two people. Congratulations, Mike. Stay tuned for next week's article, when he compares stealing signs to African genocide.

Labels: HatGuy, mike celizic, rafael palmeiro, steroids

Ah, opening day. The culmination of months of wint'ry anticipation. If you're like most baseball fans I know, you wake up on opening day pretty much overjoyed that the season is finally here. It's the one day of the season that there is almost nothing (really) to complain about. Unless you're an old, bearded idiot with a penchant for retarded headgear.

Now I'm no Yankees fan, that much I admit. But I don't think they're necessarily bad people. Some of my good friends are Yankee fans. (Fun exercise: replace "Yankee fans" with "black people" and I sound like a terrible racist!) But I draw the line when Yankee fans say things like:

Only Major League Baseball is capable of screwing up what should be the best day of the season.

What is Mikey C. referring to here? The Barry Bonds saga? The WBC? The fact that Joe Morgan is still collecting a paycheck? No. He is cranky because he had to stay up past midnight (!) to watch his favorite 200 million dollar team play baseball.

When should games start?

One in the afternoon, Mr. Commish. Not 10 at night, when weary Yankees fans had to stay up until just to see the lineups introduced.

Ten o'clock? Are you kidding me? That is fucking outrageous! Is anyone awake at ten o'clock?! I don't care how long it has been since my team last took the field. My name is Mike Friggin' Celizic and when 9:30pm rolls around, I better be in the bed down the hall from the bed my long-suffering wife sleeps in, or else! (Note: Bonus FJM embellishment for the sake of unwarranted personal attack!) Also, isn't 99% of the American workforce working at 1pm? They would almost surely miss those 1pm starts, wouldn't they? What about them?

But surely, Mike, you must have taken some joy in some of the things that happened yesterday...

Mike Piazza went yard, but Barry "My Life is a Shambles" Bonds didn’t. Bonds, in fact, didn’t even get a free pass to first base. He did, however, get booed roundly, squarely and trapezoidally.

Oh, good! Evil Barry Bonds got booed! I'm glad you could enjoy that. Also, good geometry joke. And I'm not being hyperbolic! (Wink!)

Meanwhile, back in Oakland, the Yankees took advantage of the halftime break in the NCAA championship to slap Barry Zito around, scoring seven runs in the second inning, with four of them coming on a grand slam by Alex Rodriguez, who, this being April and not October, had no trouble coming through with a big hit.

It was closing in on 11 p.m. East Coast time by then, and the teams would make it all the way through the third inning before 11:15. They say suffering is part of being a fan, but this was ridiculous.

It was ridiculous that your team was firing on all cylinders in the first game of the season? Or was it ridiculous that your team caused Cy Young winner Barry Zito to have the shortest outing of his career? Good thing your reigning AL MVP only hit a grand slam and had 5 RBIs so you could still make a crack about him being a choker.

Not that I have anything against Yankees fans suffering. And I get paid to stay up late watching sports — that’s the story I tell my wife, anyway, and I’m sticking to it — so it doesn’t make any difference to me.

This paragraph confuses me. You are clearly a Yankees fan. Why do you not have anything against Yankee fans suffering? And yes, you do get paid to stay up late watching sports. Don't you? And if you don't, and this sportswriting gig is merely a smokescreen to deceive your estranged wife, what is it exactly that you get paid to do, Mike Celizic? Moreover, how do you explain the columns that get published in various media outlets? This sure is a great cover story you've got going! (I'm confused.)

Yes, they won in impressive fashion, but who saw it?

Umm, real Yankees fans? A's fans? Millions of people west of the Mississippi who care about baseball? Me?

Great day for baseball. Too bad, like everything else baseball gets its mitt on, someone had to mess it up.

Yeah, you're right. Baseball sure has screwed a lot of things up recently. That wild card thing was a huge disaster. Interleague play has just been one big money pit for the league. That WBC did an unmistakably terrible job of showing just how far baseball has spread around the world. And to add insult to injury, they scheduled the Yankees opener to start at 10 o'clock! Is there no justice?

This is why people hate Yankee fans. The team beats a consensus World Series contender 15-2 on the glorious first day of the season, and this guy structures his article around a whiny complaint that (gasp!) his team had to start the season on the west coast.

Mike Celizic writes regularly for NBCSports.com and is a freelance writer based in New York.

No shit.

And instead I got, like, a shirt. And "The Wire: Season 2" on DVD. Which is awesome, but it's no Celizic Hat. And I'm angry.

For this reason, and also because Junior's last couple posts contained an unreasonably small amount of anger/swearing, I present some thoughts on Magic Mike's latest word-conglomeration, which is sub-titled, hilariously:

Bronx Bombers could have enough to being in Zito after dealing Big Unit

Like the Yankees couldn't pay for them both. Like they care if their payroll is $206 million or $222 million. Whatever. Let's see why ol' Mikey thinks the Yankees should deal Unit and pick up Zito.

The Yankees went into this offseason saying they wanted a leaner payroll and younger lineup in 2007. Word out of the team’s front office also was that Brian Cashman, the general manager who looks like Jeff Van Gundy, but without the sunny disposition, had wrested control of the team away from George Steinbrenner’s Tampa-based committee of crack baseball advisers.

I'd just like to say here that the patented Mike Celizic "...x is like y..." comparison used in this paragraph is actually not totally, completely terrible. Calling Cash a grumpy version of Jeff Van Gundy kind of makes me laugh. Maybe he's getting less hacky/boring with his jokes.

Experience has taught us to take such pronouncements with a grain of salt the size of the Matterhorn.

Nope. He's not. That's pretty hacky/boring.

Invariably, every Yankee long-range plan crumbles the moment an overpriced and superannuated superstar comes on the market. They couldn’t help themselves; it was the Steinbrenner way, and to expect them to behave any differently was like expecting a St. Bernard to swear off drooling.

And that one is just weird. In fact, it's fucking weird. (Take that, Junior.)

But this year, it’s been different...[excised discussion of Sheffield and Wright trades] And now, word is that the Yankees are shopping the Big Unit himself, Randy Johnson. Suddenly, the idea that the pinstripes have an actual plan that will not only keep them competitive but also build for a future that’s farther away than next March, isn’t so farfetched after all.

Read that last sentence. Savor its tangled syntax. St. Bernard-style drool over how hard it is to parse.

Can this mean the Yankees are about the join the Barry Zito sweepstakes? Yankee fans hope it does; Red Sox fans hope it doesn’t.

Huh. Red Sox fans hope the Yankees don't get Barry Zito, you say?

Barry Zito 3-Year Splits vs. Red Sox, 2004-2006

2-3, 6.45 ERA (7.20 at Fenway)
7 GS
38.2 IP
50 H
27 ER
30/22 K/BB
.309 BAA

Yeah. We wouldn't want that coming at us four or five times a year. Especially if it's instead of this guy:

Randy Johnson 3-year Splits vs. Red Sox, 2004-2006

7-1, 4.87 ERA
10 GS
61 IP
59 H
33 ER
64/32 K/BB
.252 BAA

Both relatively small sample sizes, obviously, but still.

Moving Johnson makes all the sense in the world for New York, which is another reason it is so surprising. This hasn’t been a team that’s made a lot of intelligent moves ever since its run of four titles in five years ended after the 2000 season.

Since then, they got: Mike Mussina, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Alex Rodriguez, Johnny Damon, Randy Johnson, and Bobby Abreu. They also kept: Chien-Ming Wang, Robby Cano, Melky Cabrera, and Phillip Hughes. There have been a bunch of high-profile disasters, absolutely. Lots of them. But don't tell me that these weren't intelligent moves.

Johnson is a first-ballot Hall of Famer and one of the most dominant power pitchers of all time. But he’s 43, he’s coming off his second back surgery, his 2006 ERA was 5.00, and he’s got $16 million coming in salary next year. By some measures — 17 victories being the primary one he’s still a premier pitcher. But for $16 million, a team can buy a lot of replacement.

I don't get this. Yes, he is clearly old and passed his prime. No question. He might be worse next year than he was in '06. But he might be better. And even though he was hurt, he still threw 205 innings. And, best of all, after next year, he's off the books -- he's a one-year committment right now, to a team that doesn't care about money anyway.

Trading him might be a good move, depending on what you get back. But not because of his salary. They don't care about his salary. I promise, they don't.

So let's see what Mikey's plan is.

[$16 million] just happens to be the annual salary Zito, the premier free agent on the market, wants for each of the next six years...Zito is still on the good side of 30 and has never had injury problems. He’s not the same pitcher who won the Cy Young four years ago, but he’s still the best starter available and one of the best lefties in the game. In other words, he’s exactly the kind of pitcher the Yankees need to continue to control the AL East; exactly the kind of guy they’ve always pursued with the single-minded determination of a border collie chasing a Frisbee.

First of all, sweet metaphor. Second: Barry Zito wasn't the ace on his own team. His OPS-against over the last three years is basically idenitical to that of Mike Mussina, to whom you are about to refer as: ...39 and losing effectiveness. (He also has like 2.5 times as many BBs as Mussina in that time frame.) Zito's pretty good, but a #1? Seriously?

[The Yankees] aren’t going to win the World Series without a couple of top young arms in the starting rotation. Wright wasn’t it. Carl Pavano shows no signs of being the man, either. Johnson is old and very hittable. Chien-Ming Wang is a terrific number two or three starter, but he’s not an ace. Mike Mussina is 39 and losing effectiveness...[R]ight now, the Yankees need a number one. Zito could be that man. And if Randy Johnson can be made to disappear, the Yankees could have the money to sign him.

Wang is a way better candidate for a #1 than Zito right now. I don't know how he does it, with his like 0.04 K/IP, but he does it. That power sinker is something to behold. Zito is a flyball pitcher who walks a ton of dudes, and he'd be making 30% of his starts against the Sox and Blue Jays. And they'd have to sign him for 6 or 7 years.

Also, again, the Yankees have enough money to sign him regardless. They have enough money to sign anyone. That is not the reason to move RJ. And where is the section of this article where you discuss the oft-cited rumors that RJ wants out of NY? I mean, the guy has a no-trade, so in order for these discussions even to be happening, he kind of has to want out, right? And where's the obvious counter-point that if they do not pay Boras/Zito $100 million over 7 years, they would have that money, plus the RJ-off-the-books money to pay for Carlos Zambrano, a far better pitcher than Zito, when he becomes a free agent in 2007? Are you going to talk about that, Mike?

Mike?

He's gone.

Okay. Back to "The Wire."

Labels: barry zito, HatGuy, mike celizic, randy johnson, yankees

At a time when baseball pundits seem to have lost their zeal for publishing wrongheaded baseball opinion pieces, Mike Celizic thankfully summoned all the power of his jaunty fedora to make one of the most idiotic arguments about this year's playoff races. The article's title?

"Baseball's stretch run is going to be boring"

You are truly a poet for the ages, Mike Celizic.

He begins:

"If it weren’t for those damn Yankees, this would be a pretty good stretch run for Major League Baseball. A neck-and-neck battle in the AL West, a jam-packed NL East, scads of teams fighting for the wild cards, with no real favorite.

Instead, I find myself looking at the standings and the teams at the top of the eight playoff races and thinking that there isn’t a great team among them and hoping that no one asks me for a World Series pick, because there just isn’t a clear-cut favorite."

Umm, what? Let me see if I have this right. The playoffs are going to be boring for these three reasons.

1) There are too many teams with a shot at the playoffs (currently about 16).
2) The winner of the World Series is not a foregone conclusion.
3) The Yankees, a team that has made the playoffs for the last 10 seasons, might not make it, even though they are in a three way tie for the AL wild card.

Isn't this the opposite of a boring stretch run? Or does boring mean that over half the teams in the major leagues are going to be busting their asses for the next 50 games to make it to the playoffs, where literally any of them can win?

"I could say the Cardinals [are the favorite], but they have some serious injury issues, and the memory of their collapse in last year’s World Series is too fresh to think of them as prohibitive favorites."

As opposed to the Yankees? Didn't they have something of a collapse last year? It was so long ago I can barely remember!

"There are the White Sox, but this is a team that just showed it can go a week without winning...Besides, they’re the White Sox, who haven’t won a World Series since 1917, and when you’ve gone that long without a title, you can’t be a favorite to win any tournament."

First of all, the length of time since a team's last championship has no bearing on their chances this year. Secondly, isn't this article about why the stretch run is going to be boring? Wouldn't a team with a chance of winning their first title in 88 years make their run less boring? Have I forgotten what boring means?

"Even the wild-card race is tainted by the Yankees. They’re not supposed to be fighting to just slip into the playoffs. And they’re definitely not supposed to be worried about being passed by Oakland and Cleveland.

It’s guilt by association. If the Yankees aren’t great, then nobody else can be, either."

I think I just swallowed my tongue. I am deadly serious when I ask: how can a journalist seriously make this claim and not immediately be fired?

"Baseball is moving in the same direction [as the NFL], the dampers on team payrolls and the additional two playoff spots slowly leveling the playing field and bringing more teams into contention."

The New York Yankees set a record this year with a payroll in excess of 200 million dollars. Only two other teams have payrolls over 100 million dollars. More than half of all baseball teams have payrolls less than 70 million dollars.

"We’ve become so used to having the Yankees as baseball’s all-powerful monster that it’s hard to think of the regular season as a fair fight. Instead of appreciating what we have, we’re consumed by what we don’t have. And we keep imagining that the real Yankees — like the real Mike Tyson — will suddenly emerge and give us the thrill of the massacre again."

Wouldn't most people (and I include many Yankee fans I know in this group) argue that when one team is allowed to spend three times more than most of the other teams in the league, it makes the game less interesting? Yes, it is fun when David beats Goliath, but only because Goliath has spent the better part of a decade kicking David's ass and signing every awesome free agent. And that is not fun to watch.

"Would the Red Sox’s victory last year have been as sweet and memorable if they had not had to go through the Yanks? Would the Angels’ first world title? Would Arizona and Florida have celebrated with the same gusto if they had beaten Cleveland instead of New York."

1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes (even though there was no question mark at the end of that question).

You could make a case that the Sox title would have been less awesome if they hadn't beat the Yankees, but I think that's only because of the circumstances of their historic comeback in that series. If they had swept the Yanks or beat the Twins in 5, I'm still pretty sure Boston fans would have lost their shit just as hard when they won it all.

"It’s possible that my view of things is warped by being too close to the gravitational field of Yankee Stadium."

It's either that or the fedora. Your guess is as good as mine.

"Elsewhere in America, baseball fans may well be consumed by what their teams might accomplish rather than by what the Yankees might not."

I don't know. I know a lot of Phillies fans who have barely noticed that they're currently in the middle of a dogfight for the NL Wild Card because they just can't take their eyes off this past Yanks-Jays series.

"They’re not a good team anymore, and still they dominate the way we view 30 teams and six months of competition. These are good races we’re watching. But without the damn Yankees leading the way, it’s hard to see them that way. If the Yankees aren’t great, nobody’s great."

I'm going to dispense with the sarcasm and vitriol here for a second, if I may, and make this heartfelt and sincere entreaty to Mike Celizic:

Go fuck yourself.

With all the grade-A shit Mike Celizic is churning out, I'm beginning to think we might have to.

Nothing too exceptional here, just your usual Celizic-level hyperbole, bad humor, Yankee dick-riding, and general wrongness. But, since Joe Morgan, John Kruk, and Rob Dibble (remember that guy?) seem to have heeded our advice and limited their online opinion writing, we'll have to take what we can get.

Let's begin.

There’s a buzz in the air around clunky old Shea Stadium these days, a sense of anticipation that hasn’t been felt since the second half of the 1980s when for a brief shining moment the Mets were New York’s darlings.You can insert here the usual caveat about it being too early to declare a pennant race over when it’s barely one week into a six-month schedule. But after you do, take a good look at New York’s other team, the one that is 20 years removed from its last World Series victory.

Wow, three whole sentences into an article about the Mets before you reference the Yankees. Good job, Mikey! What happened? Did your copyeditor object to your original lede: "Yankees! Yankees! Yankees!: A National League East Preview"?

What’s left is a powerful lineup studded with talent: Jose Reyes, a potential superstar shortstop at the top of the order.

I don't think anyone who regularly reads this blog needs to hear our opinions of Jose Reyes yet again, but it bears repeating:

Jose Reyes Lifetime Statistics:
.278/.300/.386 (-82 OPS+)
45BB, 145SO, 89XBH in 1190 AB

The Mets have pitching, they have defense, they have offense, and they have a New York kind of guy pulling the strings, former Yankee great Willie Randolph, who’s looking very comfortable in his second year as manager.

Thank god they have a former Yankee pulling the strings! God, could you imagine if they had some idiot like Terry Francona or Bobby Cox! Who other than a Yankee could squeeze production out of such bums as Pedro Martinez, Carlos Delgado, David Wright, Billy Wagner, and Paul LoDuca? And the characterization of Willie Randolph as a Yankee "great" is pretty much the definition of "tenuous." Wait, no. That's the wrong word. What word am I looking for? Hmm..."Wrong?" It is pretty much the definition of "wrong." That's better.

It shouldn’t take long to find out just how good they are. On April 17, they play a three-game series against the Braves, who are to the Mets what Boston is to the Yankees. By May 7, they Mets will have finished a third series with Atlanta — nine games in all.

Umm, sort of. I would probably switch that around a bit. The more apt analogy, considering the Braves' 14 consecutive division championships and the Yankees' 8 would be Red Sox:Yankees::Mets:Braves. Nitpicky, yes, but correct.

So these nine upcoming games [against the Braves] are crucial. Win six of them, and the season is theirs. Win five and the prospects of a happy October get much brighter.

What? Repeat: what? Are you kidding me? Are you honestly suggesting that winning 6 of 9 over three weeks in April and May can seal the season for the Mets? Don't get me wrong, the Mets are good. And if they won 6 of 9 that would be a good thing, but come on, Mike Celizic.

Here's a real gem by Mike Celizic, entitled "Thank the Yankees for this World Series."

The Yankees aren’t going to get their 27th world title this year, but whoever does win the World Series might want to consider sending a “Thank You” note to George Steinbrenner for making it all possible.

Okay, so, we're going to hear about how a lot of former Yankee pitchers are now with the two Series teams. Let's go.

They might even consider sending a dozen roses and a nice bottle of wine. If they really wanted to show their appreciation for everything Steinbrenner has done to make their championship possible, they might consider sending him half a pennant. He’s done that much.

We get it. Let's get to the article now.

He talks about how Pettitte and Clemens, and Contreras and El Duque, were all vital to the success of their teams. Then we get this:

What should be most galling is that the Yankees could have kept at least three of those pitchers — Contreras, Pettitte and El Duque. Good arguments were made at the time for letting Contreras and Hernandez leave, but there was never an excuse for Pettitte’s departure. Nor is there any excuse for the fact that for all four pitchers, the Yankees got nothing in return, not even a player to be named later.

The funny thing about this is, he immediately undermines his own argument. Right off the bat he says that there were good arguments for letting Contreras and Hernandez leave. Okay, well, then why are you criticizing the Yankees for letting them leave? And since you have excluded Clemens, why isn't this article just about how they blew it by letting Pettitte go?

Anyway, there's his thesis: that the Yankees, who were extremely pitching-poor this year, let go of four great pitchers and didn't get anything in return. Let's see how he backs it up.

Clemens was gone two years ago. He had officially retired, and all of us actually believed him. But Pettitte, who, like the Rocket, is from Texas, was a Yankee lifer who never thought he’d play anywhere else. But when he became a free agent, the Yankee front office took it for granted that he would come back to the fold. Instead of courting him and making him feel loved, the Yankees spent their time wooing Gary Sheffield. By the time Sheff was signed, Pettitte had decided life might be better back in Texas, where he ended up pitching with his old pal, the suddenly unretired Clemens.

Now, this is the one thing the Yankees maybe botched -- the Pettitte thing. They did maybe take him for granted, and he bolted. Fine. However, his last year in pinstripes he gave up 227 hits in 208 IP. Not great. His ERA+ was 109, down from 134 the year before. They likely would have had to pay him $10-12 million a year for five years. Instead, they went after Gary Sheffield. Who is among the five most feared hitters in the league. Who has done nothing but annihilate the A.L. I mean, it's not like they let Pettitte go and signed Christian Guzman.

Yes, it is all about pitching, and yes, Pettitte might have helped them this year. But he did have a history of arm problems. He only threw 134 IP in 2002. And don't give me any baloney about his postseason dominance. He's pitched well in October, but only about as well as he's pitched in the regular season (postseason numbers: 13-8, 4.05 ERA. 3-4 in the WS.)

And as far as Clemens goes, well, the Yankees didn't "blow" that, as Celizic freely admits. He retired. Then he unretired, but only because he could pitch close to home. What could the Yankees have done differently?

Pettitte missed most of 2004 with arm troubles and subsequent surgery. Most people suspected it was coming; he’d had episodic elbow problems for years, and those things never get better on their own. But, given the success rate of Tommy John surgery, there was every reason to expect him to come back in 2005 as good or better than ever.

A. That's crazy. A whole lot of players don't recover 100% from Tommy John surgery. B. If "people suspected it was coming," why should the Yankees have automatically committed a ton of money to him? C. Pettitte had a great year. A Cy Young-calibre year. But that doesn't necessarily mean the Yankees made a mistake in letting him go. Because, remember, they got Sheffield, and they had every reason to believe that their other pitchers were going to perform well.

El Duque is a different story. He claims to be 36 years old, but he’s really at least 39 and he had been breaking down. He missed all of the 2003 season with injuries, and had just 15 starts for the Yankees in 2004. He went 8-2, but the Yankees decided he wasn’t going to be able to shoulder a full load as a starter, so they let him go. That estimation was correct. After a hot start this year, Hernandez finished the year with just 22 starts and was ineffective until his huge relief stint against Boston.

Hey, Mike. You're supposed to be arguing that the Yankees made a mistake in letting this guy go. Remember? You have suddenly started arguing the wrong side of your own argument. Do you see that? Focus up, buddy.

But that’s been the defining characteristic of El Duque’s career — he comes up big in the playoffs. He didn’t pitch in the ALCS, but other than Neal Cotts’ two-thirds of an inning in Game 1, no one else in the bullpen did either. And if the White Sox get in a situation in which they need help early in a game, El Duque is the most likely pitcher to get the nod and the most likely to shut down the opposition.

So, the Yankees should have signed this guy to a long-term contract despite the fact that he lied about his age, was clearly like 38, and had a ton of mileage on his arm...because, although he didn't pitch in the ALCS, he might pitch in the World Series, and might be good, because he has been good in the past. Solid argument.

This year, Duque was 9-9 with a 5.12 ERA, and an 87 ERA+. He had a K/BB ratio of 91/50. He was far worse than an average pitcher. If the Yankees had had him starting all year, they probably would not have even made the playoffs, and Duque would not have had the opportunity to demonstrate his preternatural alien-influenced October skill that everybody and his brother can't effing shut up about.

Then there’s Contreras. The Yankees outbid everyone — Boston especially — for him three seasons ago when he defected from Cuba. But in one season and half of another in the Bronx, he had a talent for imploding in big games — the Armando Benitez of starting pitchers.

Hey, Mike? A word? Again, you're supposed to be arguing that the Yankees made a mistake by letting these guys go. You're doing that funny thing again where you're arguing the wrong side of your own article.

The bottom line was the Yanks ended up with nothing for four pitchers and the two teams that got them ended up in the World Series. A lot of people will see poetic justice in that.

They got nothing for them because they weren't very valuable. Clemens retired. Pettitte left as a free agent, but the Yankees took that money and signed one of the best hitters in the world to fill a huge hole in their line-up (remember, RF in the Bronx had previously been patroled by such luminaries as Raul Mondesi and Enrique Wilson [!]). Contreras sucked in New York. El Duque was a thousand years old and hasn't even been very good for the ChiSox this year.

Just because they were all Yankees at one time, and just because their teams are now in the World Series, doesn't necessarily mean the Yankees blew it. I think they should have signed Pettitte, but you obviously can't blame them for Clemens, and you shouldn't blame them for Contreras or Duque, either.

****POST-SCRIPT****

Special thanks to reader Mike G. for (nearly instantaneously) pointing out that this sentence...

Nor is there any excuse for the fact that for all four pitchers, the Yankees got nothing in return, not even a player to be named later.

...is just flat-out wrong, since Contreras was traded for Esteban Loaiza. Which, amazingly, Celizic discusses in his article. I guess he means that they didn't get anything good in return, or something. It's really unclear what he means, because, again, he is bad at arguing things.

Labels: HatGuy, mike celizic, yankees

For two years now, even as he compiled (literally) MVP-level statistics, the press has been asking: "What's wrong with ARod?" They based their ideas that something was wrong with ARod on his performance in a very very small number of games in October, which is like basing John Gielgud's acting career on "Arthur 2: On the Rocks."

Yes, he swiped the ball from Arroyo's glove, and yes, he failed to come through in the "clurmtch," or whatever that word is. But so did every other Yankee. Sheffield popped the ball up in key at bats. Matsui K'd a lot. Giambi forgot to take his medicine and turned back into a pumpkin. They all fell apart, but only ARod got blamed. And in the 2005 postseason, when he went 1-14 (the very definition of a small sample size) the press was all over him like a cheap suit.

Now he's off to a torrid start, and the new fun story to write is "ARod Finally True Yankee!!!!" But whom are they going to blame now, based on a tiny sample size?

Not...surely they wouldn't...oh my God...Run!!!!!!!!!!

Time to ask ... what’s wrong with Jeter?

As A-Rod's fortunes soar, Yankee captain down in dumps

Mike Celizic

Alex Rodriguez has undoubtedly had many moments — some of which could be timed with a calendar — during which he wished he were Derek Jeter. This is not one of them.

The Yankee captain and New York’s favorite baseball player since Don Mattingly has been having a rough go of it this year. It’s not so much his hitting, although his average is sinking fast after a torrid start and he’s got just three RBI in 12 games, but his fielding that’s been a problem.

Jeter has made a lot of errors so far. But so has Mike Lowell. And unlike Jeter, Lowell is actually a good fielder. Freaky things happen in small sample sizes. That's why after a week Ian Kinsler is 2nd in HR. That's why people say things like "At this pace, Garth Iorg will have 300 RBIs!" and then he ends up with like 34. You really can't tell anything about a player's year after 40 AB or 10 games in the field.

For the record, the reasons Jeter has made a lot of errors are probably: (a) it's been really crappy playing conditions, or (b) he's never been that good a defensive SS, or (c) it's a complete fluke.

Jeter has won three Gold Gloves, but he’s not on his way to winning a fourth. Through 12 games, he has six errors, the most in the major leagues.

For the millionth and final [sic] time, Gold Gloves are 99% meaningless.

Everybody’s writing about his problems catching and throwing, but no one’s trying to run him out of town. Yankee Stadium with him would be like the Sistine Chapel without Michelangelo’s ceiling work.

I’d ask you to imagine A-Rod in the same situation, but you don’t have to, because we’ve seen what would happen...He was booed at every opportunity and flayed daily by the talk-show guys and the columnists, many of whom suggested the only way for him to fix things was to take the first plane out of town. I was one of them, and I don’t apologize for it.

You should. It was insane. In 2005-06 he hit 83 HR, drove in 251. He walked 181 times. His OBPs were .421/.392.

SLG .610/.523.

EqA .354/.319.

His WARP3s were 13.0 and 7.5 (same as Troy Glaus in 2006, BTW), and if he had been able to play his natural position on the field, they would probably have been much higher, all things being equal.

Even when he had his legendarily "terrible" year, when everything "fell apart," when he hated New York and was a "head case" and everyone in the world wrote about how he didn't fit in with the Hallowed Pinstripery of New York, he was an awesome, awesome baseball player. Who in his right mind can think differently?

He had come to the Yankees as the best player in baseball.

By last season, he wasn’t even the third best third-baseman.

J'accuse, Monsieur de Chapeau!!!

And the worse it got for A-Rod, the better it got for Jeter. Every bad throw, every late-inning out, every clumsy attempt to explain himself made A-Rod look more misplaced and Jeter more the true Yankee hero.

Jeter had a great year last year. ARod had a very very good year that looked bad only in comparison to his outstanding previous years. It happens.

So this year, A-Rod showed up wearing high stirrups and after a couple of games to warm up started hitting — for average and power, in early innings and late, by day and by night.

I don't think this makes cognitive sense. "...after a couple of games to warm up started hitting." Does that mean, "after taking a couple of games to warm up?" Also, the part that comes after the dash reads like a weird parody of "Paul Revere's Ride."

After three years of waiting for him to do his part, he was suddenly doing everybody’s part.

He has been doing pretty much what he did in his 2005 AL MVP Season, when he went .321/.41/.610 with 48 HR, a .354 EqA and a 13.0 WARP3. This didn't come out of nowhere, people. He has always been this good. He was this good even while you were all talking about how bad he was.

But there’s something wrong with this picture — the Captain’s early-season slump, especially in the field. The SABRE folks will tell you that Jeter has never been a particularly good shortstop despite the Gold Gloves, but his teammates, his manager and anybody who watched him every day will differ.

"The facts will tell you some information. Some casual anecdotes will contradict this. Your choice."

There are some things the stats don’t tell you, and unless you watch the guy every day, there’s no way to tell you about them.

I've seen somewhere in the vicinity of 500 Yankee games, I'd say. And I think Jeter is vastly overrated as a fielder by every anecdote-toting sportswriter and fan out there. Twice a year he goes deep into the hole to his right, stabs a backhand, jumps in the air and gets the guy at first by a step. It's very impressive and flashy, but it doesn't nearly make up for the fact that he gets nothing to his left. He has what people often call a "high baseball IQ" in that he is very alert and smart when the ball is in play -- I will give him that. He takes relays well and is very athletic. But he is nowhere near the league of the Vizquels, Everetts, or even Cabreras of the world.

But there’s no denying he’s killing his team in the field right now, and his hitting isn’t that great either. Come to think about it, he’s not even stealing bases with his normal ease — just one-for-three on the season.

He's not off to a great start, but his OBP is .390, which tells you his patience is still there. And it's been like 50 AB. In 2004 Jeter had an 0-32 in April, and ended up having a fine offensive year.

It’s as if he and A-Rod are two yo-yos that are out of synch. When A-Rod was down, Jeter was up. And now that A-Rod is tearing the cover off the ball, Jeter is down. It’s a little spooky. It’s as if he thrives on A-Rod’s negative energy and is being sapped by A-Rod’s success.

Or, alternately -- and I don't mean to disparage the Yo-Yo/Vampire-Energy-Suck Theory, which seems air-tight -- ARod has always been awesome, Jeter had a mediocre first 50 AB, and this is all pointless and stupid.

I’m sure — well, pretty sure, anyway — it’s just an aberration, that Jeter’s problems are just a slump that will pass and not the result of him trying for the first time since A-Rod arrived, to keep up with and outdo his teammate.

Yeah, probably. Or -- and bear with me here -- what if ARod, brimming with jealousy and malice, is secretly poisoning Jeter with a magic serum that causes him, Jeter, to have a slightly mediocre first 50 AB of the season and be slightly worse in the field than normal? Could such a serum exist? Get on this. Pronto.

You never thought of Jeter as needing to outshine anyone. He’s shared the stage with plenty of great players, and it’s never stopped him. On the other hand, in the three years that A-Rod’s been playing next to him, he’s always been the leader and A-Rod the guy trying to keep up.

The roles are reversed right now. Jeter says it’s just a slump. So do Joe Torre, his manager, and Brian Cashman, the team’s G.M. They’re probably right.

But what if they’re not?

I said get on this! Visit every witch doctor in the city! Search ARod's home for boiling cauldrons! We will get to the bottom of this, fair readers. That I promise.

Labels: arod, derek jeter, gold glove award, HatGuy, mike celizic, small sample size, true yankee

But we started this blog long after last year's ALCS. So here's a Labor Day Weekend Treat: Mike Celizic's commentary for MSNBC the day after Game 4. It's not statistically deficient, or boneheadedly anti-reason, or anything. It's just arrogant and full of dramatic irony. So, enjoy.

Dramatic win too little, too late for Red Sox

Game 4 heroics only delay inevitable Yankees' ALCS victory

COMMENTARY
By Mike Celizic
NBCSports.com contributor

Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET Oct. 18, 2004

So the Red Sox and the Yankees finally put on a game that can be considered – by those who were able to stay up to actually watch it – a classic. Too bad it won’t be enough to save this series.

It was nice of the Red Sox to show there was no quit in them, especially when, for three games, there hadn’t been any start in them, either. But when you lose the first three games of a series, history tells us it’s over, no matter how much grit you show in staving off the inevitable.

They saved their best for last, but all they proved is that what they do best is keep people awake way past their bedtimes.

If they had staged their wonderful comeback against Mariano Rivera and then struck in extra innings for the win in Game 2 or even Game 3, there’d be something to write about. But, no matter how exciting Game 4 was, the series is still 3-1 and the Red Sox pitching has proved itself to be even worse than what we thought Yankees pitching would be.

So the Red Sox have accomplished nothing other than to delay the inevitable and make their fans, who have already suffered for 85 years, suffer for yet another day or two.

Yet the Sox celebrated after David Ortiz went deep in the twelfth off Paul Quantrill as if they had just won the World Series, dancing and chanting and carrying on as if there were champagne waiting for them back in the clubhouse.

That’s probably why they are still in the position they are, which is as hopeless as that of a wounded lamb surrounded by wolves. The Red Sox approached this series as if beating the Yankees would be the most important thing they could ever accomplish in their lives.

The Yankees came in thinking that winning the World Series would be a nice conclusion to their season. Beating the Red Sox wasn’t a crusade, it was just another bit of business to be taken care of to get to where they wanted to go.

The Yankees don’t celebrate anything as enthusiastically as the Red Sox celebrated getting to a 3-1 deficit in a seven-game series. But then, these Yankees have never played so miserably for the first three games of a series. And the Yankees understand what deserves celebration.

You can’t blame the Red Sox for looking at a win that staved off the inevitable as their finest hour. After what happened to them in the first three games – and especially in that awful Game 3 massacre – they probably know they had better celebrate when they can, because the odds that they’ll lose are just slightly better than the odds that, come morning, the sun will rise to reveal that the Rocky Mountains are still standing.

So, rather than squander your time or mine on pondering what Boston’s too-little-too-late win means (It means we have to watch them at least one more day), it’s time to look at what we’ve learned about the Yankees in this series and what it means for the World Series, coming to a television near you this Saturday.

First among the discoveries is that Yankees pitching doesn’t stink nearly as badly as we thought it did two weeks ago. They’re better than a lot of us thought. Jon Lieber has gained strength and confidence. His last three outings have been masterful. Mike Mussina is capable of just blowing up, but he can also throw a gem – for five or six innings.

And against Boston, two decent pitchers have been plenty. Orlando Hernandez chipped in with a pretty good performance Sunday, which makes three guys who can get you to the best bullpen in the game.

And if the Yankees pitching still falters from time to time, their bats make up for it. A-Rod is finally the force he was supposed to be. Gary Sheffield is an RBI machine. Hideki Matsui is truly Godzilla. And Derek Jeter has yet to start hitting with his customary playoff consistency.

The Red Sox had to win Sunday night – or Monday morning, as it turned out. The Yankees didn’t. They just need to win one more, and it’s hard to see how the Red Sox can keep them from doing it. They’re not going to score off Mariano Rivera every night. And that’s what they have to do.

So nice try, Boston. Way to hang in there. For one game, you showed something. Too bad you waited so long to start playing the series.

Labels: HatGuy, mike celizic, red sox, yankees

I'd sneak into the MSNBC.com offices and toss Mike Celizic's freelance writing submission in the incinerator.

Here's what he'd do:

What if we all had do-overs in sports?

Everybody makes mistakes, but not everybody admits them. And, when you get high enough up in a hierarchy, getting someone both to admit to a mistake and then correct it can be like spending your days down at the docks waiting for the Titanic to come in.

That's the opening paragraph. Yikes. "When you get high enough up in a hierarchy?" "...getting someone both to admit to a mistake and then correct it can be like..." Is that English?

And what is that analogy? The Titanic? Seriously? The only thing hackier than making a reference to the Titanic as a classic disaster is making a reference to New Coke.

That’s why it was so refreshing to hear NBA commissioner David Stern not only admit that his beloved high-tech synthetic basketball was a bigger mistake than New Coke

Oh my holy Lord.

but also order the microfiber ball banished at the turn of the new year and replaced with the familiar cowhide sphere the players know and love.

For Stern, it was a do-over. And seeing it happen had to make a lot of people wish there were more mulligans in sports, because the landscape of the games we pay to see other people play is littered with the kind of mistakes that cry out for correction.

The first thing I thought of that could and should have been corrected in the first two months after it was introduced was the designated hitter. The American League came up with that abomination in 1973, and it should never had made it to 1974.

Pretty sure that should read: "...should never have made it..."

That’s just my opinion

It's not iron-clad mathematical fact? You have misled me, sir!

and I recognize that many baseball fans whose powers of reason are otherwise in tip-top order believe the DH is the greatest thing to happen to baseball since beer vendors.

Mike Celizic writes like a man who has seen witty, urbane, humorous men speak in old movies and television shows and is trying to imitate them, but who dropped out of school in 8th grade and drinks a lot of really cheap brandy every morning at 11:00. And wears a funny hat.

But there are a lot of other situations that everyone would agree would have benefited greatly if teams and individuals could do it all over again...

I’m pretty sure the day will come when Michelle Wie will wish she’d have put off turning pro until a couple of years after her Sweet 16 party and concentrated on winning in the women’s game before taking on the men.

Really? She's still like 17 or something and is super super rich, and famous, partly (largely) because she got a lot of press for playing with men.

If Brett Favre could do it all over again, he might want to revoke his decision to play one more year with the Packers instead of either retiring or asking for a trade to a team that could actually play football.

Maybe. The Packers are terrible. But that dude really likes playing football. And you really think he would ask to be traded? Really?

These are the best examples of "Mulligans People Would Like To Take In Sports?" Not like Jean Van de Velde at the 1999 British Open? Or Mike Martz running Marshall Faulk more in the 2002 Super Bowl? Or the Trail Blazers taking Sam Bowie over Jordan in the draft? No? You're going with "Michelle Wie shouldn't have turned pro?" and "Bret Favre should have asked for a trade?" Okay. Hennessy's in the cabinet, Mike -- help yourself.

If we could only hit control-Z for life’s well-intentioned blunders

You know he just learned how to do that on his computer.

how much easier would it be? Alex Rodriguez could have reversed his trade to the Yankees and found a home in a city with more adoring media and fans. And the Houston Texans could have decided a month into the season that they were going to take either Vince Young or Reggie Bush after all and let somebody else have Mario Williams.

ARod, maybe. Texans, definitely. Now you're cooking with gas, Celizic!

Pete Rose could go back to when he agreed to a life-time ban and started confessing his sins right then and there.

This is effing genius. Pete Rose would not go back to the first moment he bet on baseball and decide not to bet on baseball. He would go back to the moment he agreed to the lifetime ban for betting on baseball and apologize. Excellent plan.

If the NHL’s players association had the ability to go back and fix a bad decision, we would have had a hockey season in 2004-2005. Same thing for major league baseball had the players had the ability to say, “oopsie,” and ask for another shot at getting it right in 1994.

I know that 22 years later, Portland still wants to throw Sam Bowie back into the NBA draft pool and take that Michael Jordan fellow who went third to the Bulls.

There it is. Right after "the NHL shouldn't have struck in 2004." Well placed.

Back in 1979, the entire National Football League ignored a pretty good college quarterback because of what they thought was certain knowledge that the kid was a little too small and didn’t have a strong enough arm for the big time. Finally, in the third round, the 49ers wasted a pick on Joe Montana, who worked out all right in the end.

Here's my problem with this: Yes, obviously, all those other teams would have loved to have had Montana. But is it a "blunder" not to have taken him? No. He happened to be the perfect fit for the newly-designed Bill Walsh offensive juggernaut in San Francisco. But that doesn't mean he would have been just as awesome for the Browns or something.

To me, a "blunder," a thing you should want to take a mulligan for, is a thing that everyone in the world can see is a mistake, but you ignore them and do something else. Like not drafting Jordan. Or not drafting Reggie Bush. Or not pulling Pedro in Game 7 in 2003. Sometimes things happen that are very unexpected -- like, say, Tom Brady turning out to be a great QB. But the fact that Tom Brady turned out to be a great QB doesn't mean that all the other teams blew it by not drafting him before the 6th round. Because that would mean the Pats themselves actually blew it like 5 times. See?

Tom Brady, like Montana, was passed up repeatedly before going in the sixth round to the Patriots.

Oh. You don't see.

If life came with do-overs, Grady Little could go back and pull Pedro Martinez before the Yankees could come back and win the 2003 ALCS. Leon Lett could run across the goal line in the Super Bowl with his fumble recovery before holding the ball out for Don Beebe to knock loose.

Pedro thing: absolutely. Lett thing: embarrassing, but the Cowboys won that game like 78-4.

Ara Parseghian could have gone for the win against Michigan State in 1966.

Look, I hate ND. But this famous slam on Parseghian is a mystery to me. The Irish had lost like three guys (Nick Eddy, their QB Hanratty, and someone else who I am too tired to look up) and their back-up QB was (I believe) diabetic or something and was like vomiting from exhaustion. And the next week they beat USC 300-0 and won a share of the national title. Maybe the more manly thing would have been to try to score, but I kind of don't blame the guy for playing for the tie. Neither here nor there.

Ralph Branca could throw a different pitch to Bobby Thomson.

Sure.

John McNamara could have put in a late-game defensive replacement for Bill Buckner.

Dave Stapleton was ready and willing. You're on a roll, Mikey!

Dennis Eckersley could have pitched around Kirk Gibson.

Oops.

Pitched around him? Gibson hadn't played in forever and had like 3 bad knees, and Eck's ERA was like 0.000003 and there were two outs and a guy on first and Steve Sax was on deck. Pitched around him? Are you serious?

Maybe you can argue he shouldn't have thrown a backdoor slider on 3-2. But you cannot argue, ever, that Eck should have "pitched around him."

Mike Tyson could decide to find a protein source that wasn’t attached to Evander Holyfield’s head.

Hilarious.

If only it were as easy for all of us as it was for David Stern.

If only you would retire and run a men's haberdashery, like you are destined to do.

Labels: HatGuy, mike celizic

Mike Celizic, the Chairman and Executive Vice President of the Committee to Write About Only the Yankees and Red Sox No Matter What is Going On Anywhere Else in the League, has written a column about the Yankees.

When the tabloids start pushing Alfonso Soriano as the man who can save the Yankees, you know there’s trouble in the Bronx.

I do?

What makes [losing Hideki Matsui to a broken wrist] a disaster of epic proportions is that the Yankees are not built to win low-scoring games. Their game plan is to roll out slugger after slugger after slugger, throw up six runs or more a game, and hope their pitching can make it stand up. Without two major sluggers, that plan isn’t going to work.

He's totally right. What are the Yankees going to do without Matsui and Sheffield (for like 10 more days)? I mean, yes, they've still got Jason Giambi and his 1.209 OPS. Fine. But they need more. Okay, I mean, yes, they have Alex Rodriguez, the best or second-best player in baseball, but, I mean, come on. That guy barely hit 48 HR last year. He didn't even unanimously win the MVP award. And, okay, Derek Jeter is still there, but the guy doesn't even have a 1.000 OPS (it's .956, although he just homered, so it's a little closer.) I mean, where is this offense going to come from? Johnny Damon, Jorge Posada? Gary Sheffield when he comes back in like a week?

I am with Mike on this. Hideki Matsui had an .807 OPS through 119 AB this year. Eight Oh Seven! That is almost forty points higher than second baseman Robby Cano. There are only 37 other OF in MLB (barely even one per team!!!) that have a higher OPS this year. This kind of production is absolutely, positively irreplaceable! (Unless you can trade for someone like Curtis Granderson, who has an .809 OPS so far.)

Other teams call up whatever they have on the farm and hope for the best. The Yankees have done the farm thing — Melky Cabrera and Kevin Reese have taken the shuttle from Columbus. But they’re not into the hope thing. Instead of throwing wishes at the schedule, the Yankees go shopping.

"Instead of throwing wishes at the schedule?" You know you can edit these things before you send them in, right Mike?

[Soriano is] the reluctant left fielder for the Nationals, who are already waving the white flag of surrender and talking about next season. He’s a free-agent-to-be and he’s got a fat contract. The Nats don’t want his salary or his whining, and are willing to move him right now. Unlike a lot of other teams with outfielders to trade, they don’t need anyone who can help right now.

So the Yankees could conceivably dip down into their system for some prospects in Double-A, toss in Cabrera, Reese, Bubba Crosby or any combination thereof, and get themselves a deal.

"Hi, it's Brian Cashman calling. I'm great, how are you? Great. Hey...I'm interested in Soriano. Uh huh. Well, I understand, but how about this: first off, you can choose any of our excellent AA prospects. And believe me, there are a lot of great players down there. Wait -- you didn't let me finish. Plus, we will throw in Melky Cabrera. Melky -- with an "M." Oh, right -- from "Perfect Strangers." I think that's "Balky." Uh huh. Yes, I did see him drop that pop-up against the Sox the other day, but he's really...uh huh. Okay, forget him. How about Kevin Reese. No, Kevin. Kevin Reese. We just called him up. He's great -- he has a .712 OPS at AAA this year. And here's the best thing -- he's only 28 years old! Uh huh. Okay. No, of course I am not trying to insult your intelligence, I just...no, wait. Before you hang up, let me tell you about a little guy we like to call Bubba Crosby, and his lifetime .311 SLG. This 29 year-old phenom has really established himself -- hello? Hello?"

Soriano doesn’t enjoy left field, but he’ll play it willingly if it gets him back to the Yankees. He can hit (currently batting .271 with 10 homers and 33 RBIs), although he has as much discipline at the plate as a glutton has at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Again, you are allowed to change the very first thing you write down if it's not good.

Soriano also can steal bases and play second.

That will come in handy when trying to replace their LFer.

Soriano already has worn the pinstripes, which helps. Plus, the fans sort of like him, but, then again, Yankees fans, like fans everywhere, like anyone who hits the ball out of the park 30 or 40 times a season and drive in a bunch of runs.

Why get this guy? Because he has already played for you, which means you thought little enough of him to trade him, and your fans sort of like him. Also, "drive" should read "drives," if you want to use verbs correctly.

I doubt there’s anyone in New York who thought there was any way Soriano ever would return to the Bronx. As much as the team enjoyed his hitting, his inability to take a pitch and his erratic defense didn’t fit in with the Yankees’ way of doing business. He’s been a bit of a whiner and sometimes a malcontent since then in Texas and Washington.

So get him back already! It sounds like a perfect fit!

But Soriano might be the best player the Yankees can get. If he is, you can bet George Steinbrenner will order GM Brian Cashman to get it done. And if it’s not Soriano, it will be somebody, even if it’s just Jeromy Burnitz.

Burnitz this year: .188/.235/.352. Salary: $6m.

The Yankees are suddenly without two thirds of their outfield. The offense is hobbled. Something’s got to be done.

And Mike Celizic has the answer: trade players nobody wants for Soriano, and failing that, get Burnitz.

Labels: food similes, HatGuy, mike celizic, yankees

More Yankees-Red Sox centrism from the head of the Committee to Contract Baseball Into One Division, Two Teams (CCBIODTT), Mike Celizic. He begins:

Last year, the Yankees and Red Sox opened the season against one another, and, though it was exciting in Yankee Stadium, it was too early for so much emotion.

Remember this statement for later, but for now, let's move on.

This time, the schedule makers got it just right.

This time! Not like that time when they made you and tens of other old jerks stay up past 8pm on opening day! Remember that? I get the DTs just thinking about it!

On the first day of May, with all players — resident aliens and native-born citizens alike — ready to work, the two biggest rivals in the game took the field in Fenway Park in a virtual tie for first place.

Ooookay...am I reading too much into this or did Mike Celizic just take a shot at the immigrants who went and protested on Tuesday? Or was this a tyipical MC style "joke" in which the only "humor" is a passing reference to some more or less current event? I guess I take minor offense to the phrase "ready to work," like he's implying that all those silly brown people didn't show up for work because they just wanted a day off or something. Again. Maybe reading too much into this, but still.

I know the games have been going on for nearly a month, but just as the golf season doesn’t really begin until the Masters, the baseball season doesn’t really begin until the Yankees and Red Sox get together.

Okay, now go up there and read his introductory sentence. So, if the season doesn't really begin until the Yankees and Red Sox meet, how did the schedule makers get it wrong last year by having those teams meet on opening day? Wouldn't you want the season to begin as soon as possible? Also, I would once again like to remind you that there are other teams in the league. Heck, there's even another league altogether, where a guy named Albert Pujols is doing some pretty interesting things in a strange place called "St. Louis" or something. By the way, since this is the first technical "real game" of the season, do the teams' records up to this point count? Or do we go back to 0-0? How does this work?

Yankees-Sox is now a national event, like Colts-Patriots in football, Tiger-Phil in golf, Kobe-LeBron in the NBA.

Kobe-LeBron? Really? That intense rivalry that has taken place about 6 times ever between players in different conferences who will almost certainly not meet in the finals for several years to come?

[Ortiz's home run] landed in the bullpen in right, ignited an eruption of joy in the stands and made the first statement in the first real game of the rest of the season.

It took a month of baseball to get to that moment. It was worth the wait.

Unlike last season, when the evil schedule makers stupidly made you wait zero games for the "first real game of the rest of the season."

Oh, how two weeks can magically change a man.

I'm now convinced that Mike Celizic might be the worst non-former-athlete baseball writer I've ever read. Seemingly forgetting the haughty, dismissive hack-job he did on the pennant chase a mere 15 days ago, he has just published an article entitled "Thank Goodness For Wild Card Races." This opposed to his August 23rd piece "Baseball's Stretch Run Is Going To Be Boring."

Today:
It’s season No. 11 for Major League Baseball’s wild card, and anyone who still thinks the addition of one more team to the playoffs isn’t the best thing to happen to the game since beer vendors needs to find another sport to watch.

Two weeks ago:
This year is proof that the system has introduced the game to a new sort of competition, one in which there are no clear-cut favorites. That should make it more exciting, not less so.

Today:
What makes the Yankees compelling is not the $200 million payroll with which they started the season, but the sight of so many players picked off various scrap heaps.

Two weeks ago:
They’re not a good team anymore, and still they dominate the way we view 30 teams and six months of competition. These are good races we’re watching. But without the damn Yankees leading the way, it’s hard to see them that way. If the Yankees aren’t great, nobody’s great.

Today:
The fact that the Yankees are chasing Boston and not the other way around just makes it better.

Two weeks ago:
Even the wild-card race is tainted by the Yankees. They’re not supposed to be fighting to just slip into the playoffs. And they’re definitely not supposed to be worried about being passed by Oakland and Cleveland.
It’s guilt by association. If the Yankees aren’t great, then nobody else can be, either.

What is wrong with this guy? The only explanation I can possibly come up with is that he just assumes nobody reads his columns and won't notice a complete about face in the span of 15 days. Either that or he's a complete retard.

He also includes this nugget:
When Bud Selig slipped the wild card past the owners 10 years ago, a lot of people said it was an abomination and proof that the game was going to perdition in a hand basket.

From USA Today 10/4/2004:
Major League Baseball's decision in 1993 to realign its leagues into three divisions and include the team with the next-best record in the playoffs was considered heresy by the purists, particularly because it copied a concept from football, of all things.

The only baseball owner to vote against the change, which took effect in 1994 before the postseason was canceled by labor strife, was from Texas.

Boy, he sure slipped it by those thickheaded owners!

I give up.

In FJM Heaven, every writer complains that high-OBP sluggers clog up the basepaths. In FJM Heaven, every article trumpets David Eckstein as an MVP candidate based on his grit, his heart, and the fact that he sleeps in a child's race car bed. In FJM Heaven, A-Rod is a worthless choker, wins matter more than WHIP, "it's not called the Hall of Very Good," and all bloggers live in their mothers' basements.

And in FJM Heaven, HatGuy writes about food for an entire column, every column.

Gentle readers, welcome to heaven.

No more candy cane lane? Say it ain't so, Joe!
Yankees manager goes too far by banning goodies in the clubhouse

This is just a delight. I mean, I'm not even going to be an asshole for this one. Okay, maybe a little.

If Braveheart

-- topical --

were playing for the Yankees in 2008 instead of the underdog Scottish Nationalists in 1305, he’d have climbed on a table in the Yankees clubhouse and delivered a line that would resonate through time: “You can take my life, but you can’t take my Reese's peanut butter cups!”

All of you readers who e-mail me to add the "food metaphors" label on every single post I write, this post is for you. You are legion, you are persistent, and I appreciate every e-mail.

HatGuy, Jesus...he's not even veiling his gustatory fascination with the aforementioned food metaphors anymore. This baseball column is just straight up about food. Think about that. Also, countdown until he mentions ice cream. 5...4...3...

Alas, there is no William Wallace on the Yankees and no plans for Mel Gibson to play the brave rebel who leads the team against manager Joe Girardi, who has imposed a reign of health food on his team.

No Mel Gibson joke? You disappoint me, HatGuy. Hell, "sugar tits" even has a food in it. You definitely could have awkwardly shoehorned a dated, unfunny Gibson reference in there. Next time.

No candy in the clubhouse, Girardi has decreed. And no ice cream.

There it is. For the uninitiated, I refer you to what reader Zac once wrote us:

June 28, 2006, Mike Celizic writes "Sox Fans must boo Pedro heartily," and makes a choppy, hot fudge sundae/whipped cream joke:

"If anything else happens — the fans cheering wildly or the commentators congratulating them for booing boisterously or no one taking notice of the occasion at all...[I'd] be as disappointed as I’d be if I set out to construct a hot fudge sundae and discovered I was out of whipped cream."

July 7, 2006, Mike Celizic writes "Not Time for Yankees to Panic" and makes eerily similar whipped cream reference:

"It’s hard to make panic seem banal, but that’s what the Yankees have accomplished over the years... [blahblah] ...Panic should be saved for special occasions. For the Yankees, a day without panic is like a hot fudge sundae without whipped cream."

Yes, HatGuy -- we keep track of food metaphors and similes you made nearly two years ago. That is the kind of people we are. Food metaphor enthusiasts.

It’s not just at Yankee Stadium, either. By Girardi’s orders, stadiums the Yankees will visit this year have been asked not to provide M&Ms, Dove bars, or any other sweet succulence to his Yankees.

Forget FJM Heaven. This is HatGuy Heaven! The Yankees, food, sweet food, creamy food, chocolate, dessert, Yankee stadium, candy, ice cream, Dove bars (ice cream inside candy)!

Instead, Girardi wants granola, nuts and dried fruits for his players to snack on. My guess is there won’t even be salt on the nuts.

d:(

(That's a HatGuy frowny-face.)

It makes you wonder why he doesn’t go all the way and ban apple pie and motherhood.

Because he wants his players not to eat junk food? Multi-million-dollar athletes whose bodies are finely-tuned machines designed to perform extraordinary physical tasks on an everyday basis? Yes, this man is Stalin because he doesn't want his players looking like this:



I understand his motivation — promoting healthy choices in all things. But no chocolate? No nougat and caramel? No Heath bars? Not even a roll of LifeSavers?

How many times do you think HatGuy stopped to eat something while writing this column? Fifteen? Twenty? I'm guessing he ate at least one of each and every food he mentions.

Girardi came to the Yankees with a reputation as something of an extremist, but this is ridiculous. We’re talking about grown men here. We’re talking about a freaking Reese's peanut butter cup.

Well, to be fair, you were the one who brought up the peanut butter cup.

It wasn’t that long ago — within the past 20 years — that baseball clubhouses were among the last refuges from a world that was becoming obsessed with inflicting “healthy” living on everyone — by law if necessary.

Yes, 'twas a fine time. The baseball men would laze about, drunk on molasses moonshine, cheeks puffed with tobacco crabgrass. No coloreds were allowed, and the only women were the Lace Tutu Girls, whose sole purpose was to light your cigar and freshen your martini -- toplessly, of course. Ah, 1988.

Once upon a time, players arriving for work could load up on free chewing and spit tobacco to get the nicotine that kept their engines running.

People say a lot of things about baseball. But one thing I think just doesn't get enough play is that it doesn't have enough mouth cancer.

Next to the tobacco was a rack of gum and candy. Coffee urns dispensed a brew so strong you felt you could slice it and eat it in a sandwich.

Food...metaphor? No. Yes. No, wait. No. Brain twisting...screw it, I'm adding the "food metaphors" label and the "liberal use of 'food metaphors' label" label. You happy, "food metaphors" label crazies? You're welcome.

Out of sight from the public but no less readily available were amphetamines — “greenies” — for those who needed to kick-start their games.

So you're pro-greenies? What? I'm lost.

When their work was done, the tired heroes foraged through a postgame buffet that included at least three items from the all-important grease food group. Coolers harbored all manner of soda pop and enough beer in the players’ favorite brands — Free and Free Lite — to get a fraternity house through rush week.

Yeah. That's partly why I bet a team of modern players would kick these lard-assy gentlemanly layabouts' asses. Just a guess.

Except Wade Boggs. Dude would drink 70 beers on a cross-country flight and still go 3 for 5.

It wasn’t something that the American Heart Association (or your mom) was going to endorse, but when you threw in the magazine collection — heavy on hunting, cars and women who had forgotten to bring their clothing to their photo shoots – it wasn’t surprising that ballplayers liked to get to the park early and stay later than absolutely necessary. Clubhouse life was as good as it got.

HatGuy's new rallying cry: Bring back Car & Driver & Porn & Guns magazine!

And then the health police started getting involved.

I think HatGuy is confused. You can still eat all of these things. Relax. Breathe deeply. Look in your pantry. They're still there. All of them: the Three Musketeers, the Butterfingers, the Snickers, the Milky Way Darks. Now look in your freezer. See the ice cream? Yep, it's still there. Hey, here's an idea: what if you crumbled up some of those candy bars on top of the ice cream? That's good, isn't it?

Now isn't that more fun than writing a column about there being no chocolate in the Yankees' clubhouse? Aw, he fell asleep. The little HatGuy's all tuckered out. Isn't that cute?

The first thing to go was free tobacco for reasons that should be obvious. Then teams started to get more healthy choices in the buffets. In some clubhouses the beer also disappeared.

There were good reasons for all of the decisions. Tobacco can kill you, and so can excesses of grease.

Or chocolate. Or -- gasp -- hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream. It's all fun and games when you're just making metaphors about sundaes, but when those metaphors become reality, it's your arteries that pay.

And if a player were to get drunk in the clubhouse and then get in an accident, the team could face heavy liability.

Or if a Hall of Fame-bound manager were to get drunk and then drive his SUV out into the middle of an intersection and fall asleep at the wheel, I guess that would be a pretty huge deal, right? Oh, wait -- it turns out no one cares.

But there’s got to be a limit to this.

It’s not as if modern ballplayers are Babe Ruth wannabes who train on hot dogs, beer, cigars and babes. (Well, maybe the babes, but not the other things.) These guys work out year-round and many have nutritionists and trainers at their beck and call.

So they probably don't care that much about not scarfing down Turtles for three hours straight before the game.

Sure, you’ve got your C.C. Sabathias carrying on the weighty tradition of David Wells and other noted gourmands, but for the most part, these guys are as healthy and fit as anyone could ever want to be.

So is it that modern players are all so in shape that it doesn't matter if they eat junk in the clubhouse or that it was more fun back in the old days when all guys did was eat junk in the clubhouse?

Also, not really sure how fit Joba Chamberlain is. Maybe he's like the Kingpin and it's all solid muscle.

A Dove bar or a bag of M&Ms is not going to hurt them, and it just might make them feel better — and therefore perform better.

Oh, I get it. It's neither. It's that Chocolate Makes People Better At Things! You think the chocolate lobby has gotten to HatGuy? Look, we've all been tempted by the money Big Chocolate throws at us, but I've always thought of HatGuy has an incorruptible lone kook-type.

Chocolate can, in fact, be very good for you. Dark chocolate is full of anti-oxidants and contains a chemical that elevates your mood.

Yarrrgggh!!! Corporate synergy -- they wrote chocolate into the storyline!

Right here is probably where HatGuy sticks in some hard scientific evidence proving that chocolate improves your WARP3 --

This is well-known at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where Harry Potter and his posse frequently were ordered to eat lots of chocolate to help them heal after a busy day battling Dementors.

Best part of an already unbelievable gold mine (of gold chocolate coins) of an article.

Chocolate isn’t junk food.

WE GET IT.

Some would argue it’s the best food nature ever contributed to our diet, a food loaded with anti-oxidants and imbued with a mood-elevating substance called theobromine, from which comes cacao’s scientific name — theobroma, the “food of the gods.” Was ever any product of nature more aptly named?

Holy f-ing s. He's really lost it, hasn't he? I'm worried. I'm honestly, no-kidding, 100% worried about Michael Celizic's mental state. Call me, Mike. Well, no. Don't do that. Just write an article about A-Rod faking his injury so he can avoid those high-pressure May at bats so I know everything's all right.

And now, just for the fun of it, I will now list each and every food (including repeats) or other consumptible (I made that word up to mean something you put in your body in a food-like manner) found in the column:

candy cane
Reese's peanut butter cups
candy
ice cream
M&Ms
Dove bars
granola
nuts
dried fruits
salt
nuts
apple pie
chocolate
nougat
caramel
Heath bars
LifeSavers
candy bar
Reese's peanut butter cup
chewing and spit tobacco
gum
candy
coffee
sandwich
greenies
buffet
grease
soda pop
beer
tobacco
beer
grease
hot dogs
beer
amino acids
vitamins
ginseng
Dove bar
bag of M&Ms
chocolate
dark chocolate
chocolate
chocolate
best food nature ever contributed to our diet
cacao
"food of the gods"

Labels: embarrassment of riches, fjm heaven, food metaphors, HatGuy, liberal use of "food metaphors" label