Don't know much about chemistry
The 2003 Yankees worked with a cloud over their head. Everyone knew that manager Joe Torre and owner George Steinbrenner were feuding like never before, with bench coach Don Zimmer serving as a pawn in this incredibly tense battle.
And yet that team tied Atlanta for the best record in the major leagues, because it had four above-average starting pitchers _ Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Andy Pettitte and David Wells _ and the world's best closer in Mariano Rivera. It also mounted an incredibly inspiring, curse-promoting rally to make the World Series.
The two players making the most money on the 2004 Yankees _ yes, this guy and this guy _ pretty much couldn't stand each other. Their best hitter was, to put it politely, paranoid and delusional. Torre didn't even try to hide his contempt for Kenny Lofton, meanwhile, and Kevin Brown alienated every homo sapiens that crossed his path.
Yet not only did that team post the most victories in the AL - it did so by trademarking the come-from-behind rally, the supposed indicator of a team's unity. If not for a blown save by Rivera, one of the best teammates in baseball history, they would've swept the Red Sox in the ALCS.
That's the sort of stuff I contemplate when we discuss chemistry, and these 2008 Mets. If you had spent the last two months in a biosphere and then gone straight to Shea Stadium last night, you would've watched the Mets-Marlins game and said, "Hey, what great chemistry here! Endy Chavez's ninth-inning homer! Carlos Beltran's and David Wright's perfect execution of the hit and run in the 12th! And how about Fernando Tatis, emerging from oblivion with the big hit!"
I don't think chemistry in baseball is completely bogus, not when you watch a team like last year's Dodgers implode, or last year's Phillies overcome absolutely brutal pitching to behind the strong play of strong personalities like Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard and Aaron Rowand.
And yet...what can you say about these Mets? I've been as guitly as anyone the last two weeks wondering what's going on in that clubhouse, saying that it's probably time for a change in the manager's office. But you saw the way they celebrated last night, in what at least felt like a huge victory. And if you read Anthony Rieber's game story, linked above, you'll see that the team is all fired up about a lucky, bright-orange blazer that the players ordered public-relations maven Jay Horwitz to wear Tuesday, and to keep wearing for the duration of the winning streak.
The jacket was originally owned by Jeromy Burnitz and is used as a "slump-buster." It's the sort of tactic used by a team exhibiting togetherness. Although, if Johan Santana had gotten bombed on Tuesday night, then it would have been a pathetically desperate effort by a distracted group of players, ya know?
So I think that, yes, we generally overestimate the importance of chemistry _ but I would never altogether dismiss it.
I'm curious to hear the thoughts of Mr. Tufts on this. JoeNunz, I know where you're coming down on this issue. Dennis, after last night, do you still think the Mets are SOFT?
Plug Dan Giese into Kennedy's spot on Tuesday; Giese would be on turn, and let's see if those minor-league stats are legit. Put Phil Hughes on the 60-day disabled list to make room for Giese on the 40-man roster.
And while we're at it, tell Jeter to grow a mustache (pictured in the above linked story) like Jason Giambi's.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (26)
Any thoughts on whether the Mets rushed Ryan Church back too soon after his second concussion? There are some reports (NY Times) that medical experts felt they did. It would be a shame that would looked like such a great trade could be a disastrous mess up. Branch Rickey loathed Larry MacPhail for rushing Pete Reiser back too soon and ruining his career. Alright, it's too soon to tell, but other sports that deal with concussions like the NHL and NFL have changed their procedures in recent years.
I will admit, I am all for the steM saying good-bye to Willie if they can't find their winning ways, but in all honesty that is not the first move I would like to see the front office make. If I was in charge, we would go back to some harsher times, when poor performance gets you demoted or traded - and Aaron Heilman would be already gone. I still believe that he is an effective pitcher, but let's face it, his time in NY is up. I don't think he wants to be here - always pouts about being a reliever - and frankly, I think the steM could get some quality in return. Thoughts?
Jim C., I agree, the Mets should have just DLd Church. Very poor decision-making.
bigfroe, the Mets might be able to get back an interesting, B-level prospect back for Heilman. It's an interesting thought. Of course, Heilman played a vital role in last night's huge victory.
Chemistry! The 2004 Red Sox probably would have been criticized for the long hair and mannyworld if not for the miracle comeback. The Indians were up 3-1 in 2007, what if they had closed out Boston? Terry Francona would have been fired and a drill sargeant manager would have come in. Winning hides the problems.
Sometimes teams need an external reason for togetherness - like the Yanks vs. vintage Steinbrenner in the 70's (and that power burned out quickly in the elevator punching days of the early 80's).
Sometimes teams hate their manager so much that they actually win - their common motivation is their loathing of their boss. The Mets may have to reach the point where their enemy is also external - the press and the way the home fans treat them.
And to paraphrase Bluto regarding the Yankees since the 2001 World Series.."seven years of baseball down the drain!"
Ken, the Mets to me need to be consistant and string together some wins. They beat the Marlins 2 straight games at home. But everytime you think the Mets will get on a run, they stub their toe and lose 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4. The Mets are in 4th place behind the Marlins, Phillies (Who are on fired offensively) and the Braves. They are one game under .500 just like the Yankees. The Mets need to stop being up and down like Oliver Perez is, and play better. The Mets when they face adversity last year got hit in the mouth never recover. As for the SOFT label I gave to the Mets, I said the Mets are SOFT because of when they face adversiity last year and up until now. And I definitly said that when it come to the Mets against the Phillies. The Phillies have more toughness than the Mets. The Phillies don't seem bother by adversity, while the Mets do.
Ah, baseball is such a beautiful thing. If they don't come back off a pitcher who walked the leadoff man, this would have been a brutal loss. Perez giving up bombs. Sanchez unable to keep the game tied. But they come back and a huge loss turns into a great win. What would have been "Willie needs to go; this team is a mess" becomes "They pulled together for a team win!" Seriously, it's the beauty of the game. And though they lost two of these games, I love the Marlins' lineup.
(By the way, Darling and Cohen had two funny moments last night: Darling saying "Now that he has the lead, Perez really needs to make this a quick 1-2-3 inning"... and before he could even finish what he was saying Cody Ross hit a bomb that left the stadium. Cohen was just done saying "Sanchez is REALLY LETTING IT GOOO TONIGHT" when he gave up the home run.)
Speaking of Sanchez, putting the homerun aside (brutal pitch selection by the way), his velocity is starting to creep up and he is finally mixing in some sliders. Before the injury (Zumaya of the Tigers had a similar one and may never be the same), Sanchez had a plus fastball, change and slider. His change is still great, but the fastball and slider are only slowly returning. Hopefully, by midseason, he's back to his '06 form. He's also a fierce competitor (on display in his at-bat yesterday), and can turn that bullpen into a huge weapon with Smith, Feliciano, Schow and even Heilman.
Can't say enough how devastating losing this guy for '06 and '07 was - it could have cost them a title.
Ken, I see no reason why the Yankees shouldn't give Chamberlain another turn out of the bullpen. It isn't vital they put him in the rotation yet. I looked up Giese with the link you provided and saw he got bombed the other day. Yes, he has good numbers overall and at 31 is no kid, but I'm not too sure a big league start is called for after such a bad outing.
I agree 1,000% on the "chemistry thing." As we all know "winning is chemistry." I don't think the Mets are SOFT. They are just playing poorly. Some of their players are going to come on strong. Others might very well be done. I've never thought much of Perez, but was crucified when I expressed that opinion.
I think your 90 win prediction for the Yankees is more than fair. They might finish a few games under that, unless Posada can actually come back and put together a decent offensive season. I have real doubts about that.
Agreed that they need to give Joba one more longman spot out of the 'pen. But it's not worth adding Giese to the 40-man just to get one start out of him and then possibly lose him. As much as you hate to flush a game away, Igawa is a possibility. Or even Steven White, who was recently moved to the SWB 'pen because of a surplus of starting pitching. It's just one game.
Fair point, baileywalk. Although, if they actually like what they see out of Giese and want to keep him around as a long man - which is a role they could use - they could send Chris "Scranton Shuttle" Britton back the other way.
On second thought, maybe Giese isn't such a bad idea. At his age it is now or never. Maybe he can handle that long role better than who is on the staff now or some kid from the minors. If Hughes needs to be on the DL long-term, move him to the 60 day list. He's already well into his DL time.
If I could figure out how to put a bigger font on the word SOFT, I would. Yesterday was a great win for the Mets, but lets not get overboard. They're still SOFT.
As for chemestry, I think the New York Giants of this season proved how important chemestry can be. But last years Mets when they shaved all their heads, proved it can be overrated as well.
Richie - if the Mets are "soft", which baseball team is "hard"?
Soft is a nice way to say dogs? Call them like you see them--the Mets are dogs.
Again, what team is the opposite of the "soft" Mets?
The Red Sox? They have a very poor road record, that's not so tough. The Braves? Same thing?
The only team with equivalent home and road records is the Angels. Are they our "non-soft" team?
Ken, someone on the Mets, wheither it is Willie, Omar,anyone, should tell Carlos Beltran to stop bunting. The Mets are paying Beltran $120 million to hit not to bunt. On Monday, Beltran was up as the cleanup hitter with 1st and 2nd and nobody out and a run in. So what does Beltran do? He bunts for a base hit to load the bases for Carlos Delgado, who been awful at the plate, and Brain Schneider, who can't hit a lick. I mean what kind of stupid play is that? Beltran needs to realize who was hitting behind him and drive in the base runners instead of letting Delgado or Schneider, both of them are not hitting. What do you of Beltran bunting in that spot?
If a guy isn't feeling his mojo, Dennis, I have no problem with him bunting for a hit.
The Mets won their third game in a row. This time against St. Joe's team. They are not SOFT. If a team plays poorly for a stretch of time, it doesn't automatically mean they are SOFT.
I also see nothing wrong with Beltran bunting. In fact, it is something that great players did all the time in the past. You can look it up.
I am a Yankee fan, but I have to say that it amazes me how vicious the Mets fans turned during their recent streak of bad play.
Bob, the Mets wilt under pressure. The fact that they dont play hard, doesn't make them SOFT...though I think if they played hard they wouldn't be SOFT anymore.
But here are teams from last season and this season that I don't feel are SOFT. Red Sox, Cubs (this season version), Cardinals (this season), Phillies (last season), Braves (this season).
Wow. I never thought I would read a Yankee team with players like Damon, Abreu, Jeter, A-Rod, Posada, Rivera, etc., are SOFT. Ridiculous. Girardi is SOFT? Even moe ridiculous.
Ken, the Mets are paying Beltran $120 million to hit home runs and drive in runs, not bunt for base hits. If this was A-Rod bunting with 2 men on base, you and your collages would be slaughtering him for it. And also the great players like Ruth, Gerhig, Aaron, Mays, Mantle,etc. would never bunt with runners on base.
Dennis: According to the August 2001 Baseball Digest (The Fans Speak Out): "According to the All-Time Major League Handbook, published by Stats Inc., all players you mentioned registered sacrifice hits during their careers, meaning they bunted to reach base.Rogers Hornsby had 216 lifetime sacrifice hits; Babe Ruth had 113 during his career, including a personal high of 21 in 1930. Lou Gehrig had 106; Jimmie Foxx, 71; Joe DiMaggio, 14, and Ted Williams, only five.DiMaggio registered three sacrifice hits in 1936; two in 1937, six in 1939, and three in 1946."
Taking into account the speed of Mantle and Mays, I am sure they bunted plenty of times. In fact, I'll take the time to look that up, too.
Message to Richie G (Lynbrook), I agree with the 5 teams that you metion, but the Yankees are not a SOFT team. The last 3 years the Yanks got off to terrible starts and still made the playoffs. If you think the Yanks are SOFT, then how come the last 3 years they made the playoffs after getting off to terrible starts?
Also when I metion that the great players don't bunt with runners on base, what I forgot to metion is when a guy like Babe Ruth is at the plate, he is thinking of driviing in the runners on base wheither it is a hit, extra base hit or a home run, not bunting the runners over and beating out a bunt for a base hit.
Sept. 9, 1918; Game 4 of the World Series; Red Sox v. Chicago Cubs; Babe Ruth batting for the third time (after hitting a two-run triple in his second at-bat) bunts with a runner on base. Ruth picks up the pitching win in the game as Boston wins 3-2.
Babe Ruth recorded 113 career sacrifice hits (not sacrifice flies), including 21 in 1930 when he hit 49 homeruns. He had 14 sacrifice hits in 1927 when he hit 60 homeruns. Sacrifice hits only are recorded when men are on base.
Dennis, I said the Mets are SOFT...not the Yankees.