PDA

View Full Version : Damon signs with Yanks...



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12]

PirateChief
12-24-05, 01:00 PM
Did anyone else catch Damon reffering to himself in the third person? Something to the effect of "Johnny really wants to win."

Johnny likes his new hair cut...Johnny is looking for the ladies!

M&M61
12-24-05, 01:50 PM
Johnny likes his new hair cut...Johnny is looking for the ladies!

Johnny is very much married!!!!

Casey37
12-24-05, 02:04 PM
In addition, there is a 250 page message board on this site as well containing the Red Sox fans reaction to Damon leaving:

http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=61&tid=8402&webtag=bc-redsox

I know this may be a bit mean, but reading that message board is pure, unadulterated (guilty) joy.

I feel sorry for this guy Larry, they're really letting him have it.

Barb51850
12-24-05, 02:46 PM
I like his new look. Who knew that handsome hunk was hiding under all that hair? :)

Dooley Womack
12-24-05, 03:22 PM
Am I the only one who thought Scout3434 was yet another pretend Yankees fan?

JDPNYY
12-24-05, 03:29 PM
Am I the only one who thought Scout3434 was yet another pretend Yankees fan?

Apparently not.

Casey37
12-24-05, 03:32 PM
Apparently not.

Me three.

Dooley Womack
12-24-05, 03:34 PM
Apparently not.

Yeah I guess you're right. I wasn't sure if that's why he was bounced.

CalYankeeFan
12-24-05, 10:08 PM
Watching the press conference was intriguing, to see how JD would handle the press and all of the attention. He seemed nervous to me, which was quite touching actually. Here, a guy who has seen the limelight close up and personal, who thrives on being THE GUY... was stammering but at the same time glowing and really seemed to be happy. I don't think that was fake or staged. That did not mean that he was overwhelmed by it all either - he handled things just fine.

Anyone read the articles in today's NYC papers? Seems like it has suddenly hit everyone... the gritty, gutsy, win at all costs, devil may care Johnny Damon will be patroling CF at Yankee Stadium next season. I know that there have been many critics of this move, the player, the money, the length of contract. But this is no ordinary money hungry player we have here. This is a true Grinder (yes, with a capital "G") who goes out every day and gives you everything he has. He is a winner - a guy who will do whatever is required to win a ballgame for you. This is not a Soriano type of player who won't change positions for the betterment of the team. He is not an inhabitant of "Mannyland" who takes a break in the OF to take a leak behind the Green Monster in the middle of an inning. He is not Carl Everett or Barry Bonds or Randy Johnson, with a chip on their shoulders for no apparent reason. This is a throwback ballplayer who, if he loses a step, a common worry it seems about a 32 year old with a 4 year deal, will find another way to beat you and make it hurt. The guy is 32 years old - not 37. The more I think about this guy and all he brings to the team, the clubhouse (hey, a little fun would be a good thing), the happier I seem to feel. If anyone happened to see the press conference, did you catch his answer to some reporters quetion saying that he wouldn't have a garage door in CF to contend with! The fans will come to love him and it won't take very long. Welcome Johnny.

Well put. I think after we see him on the field, in a Yankee uniform wearing #18, we'll be able to put the other stuff in the past...he's a Yankee now and we've got to pull for him...

Kind of like taking your worst enemy's girlfriend....you hate that she was ever with him, but she's yours now....

YankeePride1967
12-24-05, 10:40 PM
I have a confession. I bought JD's book "Idiot" today.

dabomb2045
12-24-05, 10:46 PM
Well put. I think after we see him on the field, in a Yankee uniform wearing #18, we'll be able to put the other stuff in the past...he's a Yankee now and we've got to pull for him...

Kind of like taking your worst enemy's girlfriend....you hate that she was ever with him, but she's yours now....


Once someone puts on the Yankee uniform, everything in the past is forgiven and forgotten

he is one of our guys now....and him doing well will help us win ballgames

CoyoteYankee
12-24-05, 10:57 PM
If anyone happened to see the press conference, did you catch his answer to some reporters quetion saying that he wouldn't have a garage door in CF to contend with!

My favorite line was when he said he would run through walls if he has to!

Evil Empire
12-24-05, 11:14 PM
62 pages? Damon should feel honored.

CalYankeeFan
12-25-05, 01:01 AM
62 pages? Damon should feel honored.

Yeah, plus the 111+ in this one, and who knows how many other boards...

BillBuckner
12-25-05, 10:49 AM
Huh? Mantle was an immortal and Damon is an above average player.
Yes and my point being that some people are not happy with any scenerio.

Munson's 'Stash
12-25-05, 10:54 PM
Id say the minor shoulder injury he had is the reason for the drop off

Here are the actual numbers:

Pre ASB: .343/.386/.473 (.859) with a .371 BABIP
Post ASB: .282/.343/.397 (.740) with a .295 BABIP

BABIPs fluctuate, but a score around .300 is good but still within a normal range. When a player is hitting as high as Damon was in the first half it's just incredibly lucky. BABIP is still somewhat of a skill for hitters, but not that much.

JD looks like he regressed and it was disguised by his BABIP. Couple that with is perforamnce outside of Fenway/ in Yankee stadium and I don't think the amount of $ spent was wise in the long term.

OTOH the Yanks needed a CF and JD will definitely track down more flyballs than Bernie.

Snatch Catch
12-26-05, 06:03 AM
Here are the actual numbers:

Pre ASB: .343/.386/.473 (.859) with a .371 BABIP
Post ASB: .282/.343/.397 (.740) with a .295 BABIP

BABIPs fluctuate, but a score around .300 is good but still within a normal range. When a player is hitting as high as Damon was in the first half it's just incredibly lucky. BABIP is still somewhat of a skill for hitters, but not that much.

JD looks like he regressed and it was disguised by his BABIP. Couple that with is perforamnce outside of Fenway/ in Yankee stadium and I don't think the amount of $ spent was wise in the long term.

OTOH the Yanks needed a CF and JD will definitely track down more flyballs than Bernie.

*sigh*

It's funny that peple are calling this regression. Johnny Damon has a .310 career BABIP. In 2005 it was .343.

Considering standard deviations and such, .343 is certainly not a fluke.

Especially considering that he's done it before; Johnny had a .342 BABIP in 2000.

His walk rate went down, and that is what caused his overall numbers to drop despite the high BABIP. We need to look at the bigger picture before we start coming to false conclusions.

MattUNC2003
12-26-05, 04:00 PM
Has anyone ever gone out of the country and not had internet access before when something like this happens? Lemme tell you, it really sucks. I only found out about it on ESPN and they didn't provide much great detail on it.....Stupid Caribbean islands with their amazing beaches, warm temperatures, and wonderful opportunities to escape from everything by limiting communication with the outside world.... :D ;)

Ok, so, I am confused here on this one. (Plus, I think I am over-thinking this).

Do we owe Boston our newly acquired first round pick for this one? I know it's post arb deadline, but I am assuming they offered Damon arbitration. I tried searching for this one and came up with nothing.

nhyankeefan
12-26-05, 04:09 PM
Has anyone ever gone out of the country and not had internet access before when something like this happens? Lemme tell you, it really sucks. I only found out about it on ESPN and they didn't provide much great detail on it.....Stupid Caribbean islands with their amazing beaches, warm temperatures, and wonderful opportunities to escape from everything by limiting communication with the outside world.... :D ;)

Ok, so, I am confused here on this one. (Plus, I think I am over-thinking this).

Do we owe Boston our newly acquired first round pick for this one? I know it's post arb deadline, but I am assuming they offered Damon arbitration. I tried searching for this one and came up with nothing.

We keep the pick we got from the Phillies signing Gordon. The Sox offered Damon arbitration so they get our original 1st pick which is #28. Because he is a higher rated player than Farnsworth, the Braves now get our 2nd round pick.

Yankee26t
12-26-05, 04:13 PM
OK
This gets me a little excited
Johnny Damon said, "I will go out there and run through walls for them, hit and bring another championship to New York."

Munson's 'Stash
12-26-05, 06:45 PM
It's funny that peple are calling this regression. Johnny Damon has a .310 career BABIP. In 2005 it was .343.

Considering standard deviations and such, .343 is certainly not a fluke.

Especially considering that he's done it before; Johnny had a .342 BABIP in 2000.

I called it regression because that is what you call it when a standard deviation regresses to the mean: If you compare his career BABIP to his '05 numbers it was higher than normal. If his BABIP was larger than normal you would expect it return to the baseline. BABIP is a skill for hitters, but how much so is clear. To that extent we can expect Damon to have above normal ratings, but my concern is that with the signing people are going to expect career high perfomance levels to become the baseline for the signing.

Do you have his BABIP for 2001-2004? How do they compare to the high numbers you quoted for '00 and '05? I would imagine some of them are below .310 to average out his career line. My point is that we should not expect his performance to be based on his line when he's lucky on BIPs, but the Yankees paid him as though that will be his baseline, not the exception.


His walk rate went down, and that is what caused his overall numbers to drop despite the high BABIP. We need to look at the bigger picture before we start coming to false conclusions.

This pretty much proves my point. A player who depends on getting lucky (in this case high BABIP) the player is going to be inherently streaky/inconsistient. I don't see how you can look at his first and second halves and say that his walk rate was the problem. The difference on his BABIP is .75 points! His walk rate was down the whole year from his '04 levels. He might have had better 2nd half with a higher walk rate, but if he had gotten luckier he would have also looked alot better.

FWIW I thought this was the best possible move for the Yankees, I'm just against the idea that this is the move that guarantees the Yankees a championship. How many of those have we all seen? A-Rod? Randy Johnson? Now Damon? There are problems that underlie this signing that should not be ignored.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-26-05, 06:46 PM
*sigh*

It's funny that peple are calling this regression. Johnny Damon has a .310 career BABIP. In 2005 it was .343.

Considering standard deviations and such, .343 is certainly not a fluke.

Especially considering that he's done it before; Johnny had a .342 BABIP in 2000.

His walk rate went down, and that is what caused his overall numbers to drop despite the high BABIP. We need to look at the bigger picture before we start coming to false conclusions.

and his nagging shoulder injury had something to do with it too. I dont think he had a career year last year but I also dont think he declined and there wont be a big drop off until the last year or second half of the third year.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-26-05, 06:53 PM
I called it regression because that is what you call it when a standard deviation regresses to the mean: If you compare his career BABIP to his '05 numbers it was higher than normal. If his BABIP was larger than normal you would expect it return to the baseline. BABIP is a skill for hitters, but how much so is clear. To that extent we can expect Damon to have above normal ratings, but my concern is that with the signing people are going to expect career high perfomance levels to become the baseline for the signing.

Do you have his BABIP for 2001-2004? How do they compare to the high numbers you quoted for '00 and '05? I would imagine some of them are below .310 to average out his career line. My point is that we should not expect his performance to be based on his line when he's lucky on BIPs, but the Yankees paid him as though that will be his baseline, not the exception.



This pretty much proves my point. A player who depends on getting lucky (in this case high BABIP) the player is going to be inherently streaky/inconsistient. I don't see how you can look at his first and second halves and say that his walk rate was the problem. The difference on his BABIP is .75 points! His walk rate was down the whole year from his '04 levels. He might have had better 2nd half with a higher walk rate, but if he had gotten luckier he would have also looked alot better.

FWIW I thought this was the best possible move for the Yankees, I'm just against the idea that this is the move that guarantees the Yankees a championship. How many of those have we all seen? A-Rod? Randy Johnson? Now Damon? There are problems that underlie this signing that should not be ignored.

1) Damon had a shoulder injury, and that is what I attribute to his poor second half half. Now he isnt as good as he was in the first half and did get lucky to some extent. However he is a better player than he was in the second half and if his shoulder is healthy will be around .300/.365/.450 for 2 years. .280/.350/.410 in the third year and .260/.320/.390 in the the last year.

2)A-rod wasnt the problem in 2004, it was the pitching, Randy Johnson was good last year but the hitting was inconsistant and the defense was bad.(and imo will be better this year but lets not get into that as it will take a lot of typing to explain why) Damon doesnt guarantee a Championship but he makes the Yankees a whole lot better. Essentially going from a horrible bat to a top of the line leadoff hitter and from the worst defensive CF in baseball to a guy who has great range.

BronxByTheBay
12-26-05, 08:40 PM
I'm just against the idea that this is the move that guarantees the Yankees a championship.

I'm so tired of hearing this strawman. Who has declared the WS, let alone the division, ours because of this signing? If you're going to list any names off of ESPN or local media have fun - most on this forum think they're morons.

What this move guarantees, barring injury, is that for at least a couple of seasons we don't have to worry about CF. That's about all anyone 'round these parts is taking away from it.

Jasbro
12-26-05, 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by Munson's 'Stash
I called it regression because that is what you call it when a standard deviation regresses to the mean.I am no statistician, but I do not think that a standard deviation regresses anywhere.

BABIP is a skill for hitters, but how much so is clear.
A player who depends on getting lucky (in this case high BABIP) the player is going to be inherently streaky/inconsistient.So is a good BABIP a skill or is it luck?
I don't see how you can look at his first and second halves and say that his walk rate was the problem. The difference on his BABIP is .75 points! His walk rate was down the whole year from his '04 levels. He might have had better 2nd half with a higher walk rate, but if he had gotten luckier he would have also looked alot better.I think his shoulder injury could have had a lot more to do with his second-half "regression" than a notoriously volatile and unreliable stat.

Dooley Womack
12-26-05, 10:57 PM
I am no statistician, but I do not think that a standard deviation regresses anywhere.
So is a good BABIP a skill or is it luck?I think his shoulder injury could have had a lot more to do with his second-half "regression" than a notoriously volatile and unreliable stat.

Right on the money.

ryanm1058123
12-26-05, 11:47 PM
sorry i haven't read the full thread..

but did damon get a NTC

Epy7280
12-26-05, 11:58 PM
sorry i haven't read the full thread..

but did damon get a NTC

i dont think so.

Dooley Womack
12-27-05, 12:04 AM
Was just thinking how wide my eyes opened up when I first saw this thread. There were only like about 3-4 posts in it at the time. It was the first I learned of the deal and had to read it 6 times to make sure I wasn't dreaming. The next 2 hours were spent combing the net and TV to see if it was real or a rumor.

I'm still excited that a need was filled and with one of the best possible choices out there.

AMYanks
12-27-05, 01:00 AM
sorry i haven't read the full thread..

but did damon get a NTC

A limited NTC, I think, with only a few teams on it. Although, I doubt any team would be willing to take on his contract in the 3rd or 4th year.

NYYBombshell
12-27-05, 01:47 AM
Was just thinking how wide my eyes opened up when I first saw this thread. There were only like about 3-4 posts in it at the time. It was the first I learned of the deal and had to read it 6 times to make sure I wasn't dreaming. The next 2 hours were spent combing the net and TV to see if it was real or a rumor.

I'm still excited that a need was filled and with one of the best possible choices out there.



We better win the f*cking WS this year.

Dooley Womack
12-27-05, 03:34 AM
We better win the f*cking WS this year.
.................

Dave Visbeck
12-27-05, 04:08 AM
If I'm still in California for starting day in Oakland ... Johnny buddy ... I'll be seeing you in the back parking lot after the first game. I've got something to talk to you about. :)

Dave Visbeck
12-27-05, 04:09 AM
We better win the f*cking WS this year.

I still can't see it happening... :(

nahzo
12-27-05, 04:32 AM
I still can't see it happening... :(

Who do you deem better?

Dave Visbeck
12-27-05, 04:40 AM
Who do you deem better?

California Angels or Chicago White Sox at worst.

mbn007
12-27-05, 08:10 AM
California Angels or Chicago White Sox at worst.
Yankee pitching, when healthy, is close to par with the ChiSox. But we have a better lineup. Much better.

We can also pitch with the Angels. And we have a better lineup.

Yankees will win in 2006. Just watch. ;)

Munson's 'Stash
12-27-05, 09:05 PM
So is a good BABIP a skill or is it luck?I think his shoulder injury could have had a lot more to do with his second-half "regression" than a notoriously volatile and unreliable stat.

As I said, it's both (read the part after the part you bolded). There is a certain amount of luck (whether or not the ball is hit at a feilder or not) but it is also a matter of skill (does the player have the sort of swing that generates more line drives, flies, or grounders). A player that hits the most line drives is probably going to have a higher BABIP.

BABIP is not inherently unreliable; it describes an aspect of the game that is not constant.


I'm so tired of hearing this strawman. Who has declared the WS, let alone the division, ours because of this signing? If you're going to list any names off of ESPN or local media have fun - most on this forum think they're morons.

And of course a few pages down there's a post suggesting that the WS is now a "slam dunk."

"Insert irony icon here"

NYDCYankee
12-28-05, 01:19 AM
USA Today has an article about Damon's marketiblity:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20051228/damon28.art.htm

New Yankee stands to cash in on endorsements
Damon moves to hot market


His trademark hair and beard are shorn, but marketing experts say that won't cut short Johnny Damon's chances of endorsement bucks as a New York Yankee.

The once-scruffy Damon could be in prime position to catch significant deals as a pinstriped center fielder. He's a nationally known player — helping to lead the Boston Red Sox to a World Series victory — and has proved his mettle as a product endorser for the likes of Puma, DHL, Gillette and Dunkin' Donuts.

Now, playing in the center of the media universe, he'll have the opportunity to cash in even more, industry observers say. Jim Andrews, editorial director of the IEG Sponsorship Report, says that Damon's jump to the “biggest media market certainly moves him up the desirability scale.”

And his fielding position certainly helps: “A center fielder for the Yankees gets a lot of exposure. That position was played by Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio,” says Terry Lefton, editor-at-large for the Sports Business Journal.

Damon is extremely comfortable mixing with fans, not just schmoozing with marketing executives, says Peter Caparis, who recently worked with Damon to secure endorsement deals. “You couldn't not be relaxed in his presence,” he says.

This week, sport marketers are speculating on which advertisers will sign Damon now that he's officially a Yankee. Those guesses range from train and shuttle flights from Boston to the Big Apple (such as Amtrak and Delta) and grooming products to even local car dealers. “He likes cars and motorcycles, so a local dealership maybe,” Caparis says. “But it would have to be a brand that's hip.”

Damon will face competition from superstar teammates, such as Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. “Fighting for marketing shelf space alongside Jeter and A-Rod may prove problematic if, over time, Damon is merely perceived as just another all-star player added to Steinbrenner's stable,” says David Carter of The Sports Business Group.

CoyoteYankee
12-28-05, 01:34 AM
New Yankee stands to cash in on endorsements
Damon moves to hot market

Fabulous. I predict that by May 4 Damon will be claiming that martians have been flying in to watch him play and get his autograph.

PittsburghYankeeFan
12-28-05, 11:46 AM
California Angels or Chicago White Sox at worst.

No way.

The Yankees have the best 1-7 in baseball. Posada had an off year in 05, and I suspect he will be better. Bernie is far better than Sierra ever was. Cairo (who they will acquire) is better than Womack or Escalona. The pitching can't be worse than last year, especially the bullpen--it can only get better. No way do they start as flat as 05--that was a once in a decade fluke aggravated by the 04 loss to the Sawx. They are good for 100+ wins, and an easy coast to 1st over the Blue Jays.

The issue is the playoffs--I suspect the Yankees' enormous run production in 06 will allow us to see exactly what Chacon and Wang really have--my guess is that they really have it (Chacon was an 03 All Star, after all). A rotation of RJ (ageless, sorry, how else do you explain 4 innings of amazing relief in game 5 of the ALDS), Mussina (in his walk year), Chacon, and Wang with an offense scoring 5-6 plus runs per game will be hard to beat.

White Sox? It will be hard to replicate career years for all of their starters, especially during playoff time (can you say 03 Marlins). Even with Thome, their bats strike fear in no one.

Angels? Aside from their bullpen and maybe Lackey, what's up with their pitching? Colon? Another 21 win season? They will make a play for Manny (trying for Manny/Vlad to replicate Manny/Ortiz), and who knows how that will mess them up.

I see Yankees in 5 over the Cardinals or Mets.

PittsburghYankeeFan
12-28-05, 11:53 AM
Did anyone see this editorial in the Boston Globe about the Damon signing? What is wrong with them? This must really have hurt the RSN pretty badly for the Globe to be publishing such a ridiculous sour grapes editorial like this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/24/steinbrenners_folly/

Also, the Red Sox fan reaction to Damon thread is now up to 380 pages:


http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=61&tid=8402&webtag=bc-redsox

BronxByTheBay
12-28-05, 11:59 AM
Did anyone see this editorial in the Boston Globe about the Damon signing? What is wrong with them? This must really have hurt the RSN pretty badly for the Globe to be publishing such a ridiculous sour grapes editorial like this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/24/steinbrenners_folly/

Also, the Red Sox fan reaction to Damon thread is now up to 380 pages:


http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=61&tid=8402&webtag=bc-redsox

From the editorial:


Think of it this way: If Theo returns to Fenway like Achilles returning to the plains of Troy, if newcomer Jonathan Papelbon fulfills his destined role as the next Roger Clemens, and if the Bosox find a shortstop somewhere and a center fielder to replace Damon, New Englanders may realize that the end of days was never as near as it seemed.

If, if, if. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

nhyankeefan
12-28-05, 12:19 PM
Did anyone see this editorial in the Boston Globe about the Damon signing? What is wrong with them? This must really have hurt the RSN pretty badly for the Globe to be publishing such a ridiculous sour grapes editorial like this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/24/steinbrenners_folly/

Also, the Red Sox fan reaction to Damon thread is now up to 380 pages:


http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=61&tid=8402&webtag=bc-redsox

I laughed when I read the "editorial". I'm still waiting for the Globe to write an article called "Hicks' Folly" for signing Millwood.

ring403
12-28-05, 01:04 PM
Did anyone see this editorial in the Boston Globe about the Damon signing? What is wrong with them? This must really have hurt the RSN pretty badly for the Globe to be publishing such a ridiculous sour grapes editorial like this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/24/steinbrenners_folly/

Also, the Red Sox fan reaction to Damon thread is now up to 380 pages:


http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=61&tid=8402&webtag=bc-redsox
Jilted Lover Syndrome

Someone needs to start a JLS support group. ;)

MiamiKat
12-28-05, 01:09 PM
Did anyone see this editorial in the Boston Globe about the Damon signing? What is wrong with them? This must really have hurt the RSN pretty badly for the Globe to be publishing such a ridiculous sour grapes editorial like this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/24/steinbrenners_folly/


I'm surprised this wasn't also run in the New York Times.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-28-05, 01:12 PM
LMAO that article says that Papelbon has Roger Clemens potetional. BTW 32 isnt old and Damon's only knock is his bad arm

keithf1
12-28-05, 01:33 PM
BronxBytheBay, what happened to your Vince Vaughn avatar and Made quotes? I didn't think anyone else in the world appreciated that movie.

Snatch Catch
12-28-05, 01:42 PM
From the editorial:


If, if, if. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

I LOVE the whole Papelbon = Clemens thing.

LOVE IT.

He's likely a league average starter this year, in my mind, if that. There's a chance he's slightly above league average, but I wouldn't put any money on it.

Annie418
12-28-05, 01:46 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/24/steinbrenners_folly/

If Theo returns to Fenway like Achilles returning to the plains of Troy

He better be wearing ankle guards.

YankeeFan1
12-28-05, 02:07 PM
Did anyone see this editorial in the Boston Globe about the Damon signing? What is wrong with them? This must really have hurt the RSN pretty badly for the Globe to be publishing such a ridiculous sour grapes editorial like this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/24/steinbrenners_folly/

Also, the Red Sox fan reaction to Damon thread is now up to 380 pages:


http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=61&tid=8402&webtag=bc-redsox

What reputable newspaper dedicates a long ass unsigned editoral on behalf of the baseball team that it owns? Here is another article that attacked Johnny Damon's looks: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/25/exit_stage_left/?page=full How can the Globe publish this kind of trash? Apparently, the Globe has made the leap to being a tabloid.

boo_427
12-28-05, 02:16 PM
BronxBytheBay, what happened to your Vince Vaughn avatar and Made quotes? I didn't think anyone else in the world appreciated that movie.

Incorrect, that movie absolutely kills me.

keithf1
12-30-05, 05:35 PM
Incorrect, that movie absolutely kills me.
I'm glad you enjoyed it too. Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau need to make a 3rd movie. I think Favreau is huge now and they are both getting up there in age though.

keithf1
12-30-05, 05:37 PM
I thought you guys might find this interesting. It is A-Rod commenting on the Damon signing and the Damon-Jeter combo.


At this point, A-Rod recognizes his sincerity and motives are challenged enough that there is no such thing as a simple answer to a simple question. A few weeks ago when the courtship phase with Damon was still ongoing, Rodriguez was quoted as saying he hoped the Yanks would sign the center fielder because Damon and Ichiro Suzuki were the majors' best leadoff hitters.

The decoding began instantly. Derek Jeter had a higher on-base percentage than both Damon and Suzuki last year and for his career; therefore, this was roundly translated to be more a slap at Jeter than an A-Rod endorsement of Damon.

"I don't feel a need to address it," Rodriguez said. But then, indeed, he did address it, showing just how leery and exhausted he has become of such matters.

"Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows [Jeter] is the best No. 2 hitter, and a terrific leadoff hitter, but now we have the best 1-2 in baseball," Rodriguez explained. "You can put any Hall of Fame player into the one spot [leadoff] and they are going to be great. No one is questioning Jeter's greatness."

Rodriguez cited Jeter's ability, maybe the best in the majors, to hit to right field, bunt and run the bases intelligently, making him the ideal No. 2 hitter. He also called the one-time Chuck Knoblauch/Jeter top of the order the "recipe for world championships," and added, "I played against those teams when they had that 1-2 and it was devastating to deal with."

The rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/60500.htm

StaceyRosie
12-30-05, 05:40 PM
That A-Rod...what an asshole!

;)

keithf1
12-30-05, 05:46 PM
That A-Rod...what an asshole!

;)

I agree :P

But what does everyone think about A-Rod's comment on the 1-2 in the batting order especially?

Tifoso
12-30-05, 05:47 PM
I agree :P

But what does everyone think about A-Rod's comment on the 1-2 in the batting order especially?


Odd he would assume Jetes would hit #2. Maybe he knows something.

keithf1
12-30-05, 05:58 PM
Odd he would assume Jetes would hit #2. Maybe he knows something.
I hope he's right.

Mr. Mxylsplk
12-30-05, 06:08 PM
But what does everyone think about A-Rod's comment on the 1-2 in the batting order especially?
I think he's right. Is there a better 1-2 than Damon / Jeter? I sure don't think so.

Tifoso
12-30-05, 06:11 PM
I think he's right. Is there a better 1-2 than Damon / Jeter? I sure don't think so.


Agreed. Two .300+ hitters at the top...with some pop. I can't think of another (at least in the AL). May be missing one, though. :o

Arod for President
12-30-05, 06:28 PM
Agreed. Two .300+ hitters at the top...with some pop. I can't think of another (at least in the AL). May be missing one, though. :o

The White Sox with Podsednick and the Orioles with Roberts have pretty great leadoff hitters. But when it comes to the 1-2 punch... The yankees by far blow any other AL team out of the water. Damon and Jeter will be a force every team is going to fear.

Oh God dont get me started on NY's 3,4, and 5 hitters! This offensive lineup is gonna be Rediculous! and a joy to watch as a yankees fan :D

Tifoso
12-30-05, 06:30 PM
The White Sox with Podsednick and the Orioles with Roberts have pretty great leadoff hitters. But when it comes to the 1-2 punch... The yankees by far blow any other AL team out of the water. Damon and Jeter will be a force every team is going to fear.

Oh God dont get me started on NY's 3,4, and 5 hitters! This offensive lineup is gonna be Rediculous! and a joy to watch as a yankees fan :D

Agreed. Only correction is that we are Murderer's Row down through the 6th position.

JDPNYY
12-30-05, 06:37 PM
The White Sox with Podsednick and the Orioles with Roberts have pretty great leadoff hitters. But when it comes to the 1-2 punch... The yankees by far blow any other AL team out of the water. Damon and Jeter will be a force every team is going to fear.

Oh God dont get me started on NY's 3,4, and 5 hitters! This offensive lineup is gonna be Rediculous! and a joy to watch as a yankees fan :D

2005 Stats

Podsednick
OB% .351
OPS+ 86
SB 59
CS 23

Roberts
OB% .387
OPS+ 145
SB 27
CS 10

Damon
OB% .366
OPS+ 113
SB 18
CS 1

Jeter
OB% .389
OPS+ 121
SB 14
CS 5

Yankees1962
12-30-05, 07:08 PM
2005 Stats

Podsednick
OB% .351
OPS+ 86
SB 59
CS 23

Roberts
OB% .387
OPS+ 145
SB 27
CS 10

Damon
OB% .366
OPS+ 113
SB 18
CS 1

Jeter
OB% .389
OPS+ 121
SB 14
CS 5
Today, Will Carroll from Baseball Prospectus was on XM Radio again and he was talking about Roberts injury. He stated that Robert's injury was so severe that he tore everything in his left arm and that his arm was literally hanging by nothing more than skin. Carroll has some doubts whether such a severe injury will affect Roberts at that plate. Since, it was to his non-throwing arm, he doesn't think it will affect his fielding so much, but batting-wise he does have some doubts, particularly about the power numbers Roberts put up last season that might not be repeated.

Jasbro
12-30-05, 09:24 PM
Odd he would assume Jetes would hit #2. Maybe he knows something.

There is nothing odd about it -- it is the most sensible configuration. Jeter may be a better leadoff hitter, but he is also the better #2 hitter by a large margin. And the combo of Damon/Jeter is stronger than the combo of Jeter/Damon.

With Damon leading off, it is conceivable that we could have lefty/righty from top to bottom in the lineup.

Yankeees
12-30-05, 09:49 PM
Today, Will Carroll from Baseball Prospectus was on XM Radio again and he was talking about Roberts injury. He stated that Robert's injury was so severe that he tore everything in his left arm and that his arm was literally hanging by nothing more than skin. Carroll has some doubts whether such a severe injury will affect Roberts at that plate. Since, it was to his non-throwing arm, he doesn't think it will affect his fielding so much, but batting-wise he does have some doubts, particularly about the power numbers Roberts put up last season that might not be repeated.

Poor Guy. I heard he's real good with the kids around Baltimore as well.

Yankeees
12-30-05, 09:50 PM
There is nothing odd about it -- it is the most sensible configuration. Jeter may be a better leadoff hitter, but he is also the better #2 hitter by a large margin. And the combo of Damon/Jeter is stronger than the combo of Jeter/Damon.

With Damon leading off, it is conceivable that we could have lefty/righty from top to bottom in the lineup.

100% Agreed.

BJG
12-30-05, 10:33 PM
There is nothing odd about it -- it is the most sensible configuration. Jeter may be a better leadoff hitter, but he is also the better #2 hitter by a large margin. And the combo of Damon/Jeter is stronger than the combo of Jeter/Damon.

With Damon leading off, it is conceivable that we could have lefty/righty from top to bottom in the lineup.

1. How is Jeter a better number 2 hitter by a wide margin? It does't seem like there would be an appreciable difference.

Basically, I'd imagine that Jeter is the hitter that Jeter is and Damon is the hitter that Damon is regardless of where they hit. I don't see some magical skill set that makes one guy head and shoulders better in a particular spot. If you are looking for 2-hole skills though, Damon strikes out less (and therefore puts the ball in play more) yet grounds into double plays at a lesser rate, can hit the ball to the right side, is likely to have about the same power, etc.

I don't think it matters, but if you do, the last time Damon batted 2nd, he got 156 AB there in 2002 and hit .321/.384/.532 vs. .286/.356/.443 overall, so there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Damon can't handle the spot in the lineup.

2. It's conceivable this way too:

R Jeter
L Damon
R Arod
L Giambi
R Sheffield
L Matsui
S Posada
L Cano
S Williams

JavyVazquezIsSick
12-30-05, 11:06 PM
Damon would make a better number 2 hitter, but Torre isn't aware of this...

ryanthe13th
12-30-05, 11:17 PM
Damon would make a better number 2 hitter, but Torre isn't aware of this...

Someone posted the Damon vs LHP stats, and I would definitely hit Jeter 1st against lefties and be resigned to Damon leading off against RHP.

JavyVazquezIsSick
12-30-05, 11:35 PM
Someone posted the Damon vs LHP stats, and I would definitely hit Jeter 1st against lefties and be resigned to Damon leading off against RHP.

Last season he was actually better vs. lefties, in 03' he was slightly worst, but in 04' he had a horrible year vs. lefties which throws his 3 years totals off. Anyways, it wouldn't really matter in terms of ABs over the course of the season if he bats 1st or 2nd vs. lefties...

keithf1
12-30-05, 11:47 PM
There is nothing odd about it -- it is the most sensible configuration. Jeter may be a better leadoff hitter, but he is also the better #2 hitter by a large margin. And the combo of Damon/Jeter is stronger than the combo of Jeter/Damon.

With Damon leading off, it is conceivable that we could have lefty/righty from top to bottom in the lineup.
Nicely said, this is why I think Damon should lead off. Also, that is what he is comfortable doing. Jeter is comfortable with either.

JavyVazquezIsSick
12-30-05, 11:51 PM
Nicely said, this is why I think Damon should lead off.

Did you miss BJG's post?

JDPNYY
12-30-05, 11:53 PM
Johnny Damon is the natural lead off hitter the Yankees have been missing since the days of Hall of Famer Phillip Frances Rizzuto.

Dooley Womack
12-31-05, 12:49 AM
When watching on T.V. you get a different perspective and I never realized that the press conference room was this cramped. Look at the guy I pointed an arrow at who's seated. His feet must have been close to touching Torre's.

Well, at least it's not like Fenway, where there is one Dunkin Donut logo to every Sox logo.

Yankees1962
12-31-05, 01:37 AM
Did you miss BJG's post?
Maybe, he chose to ignore it because he prefers Damon to lead off.

keithf1
12-31-05, 01:56 AM
Did you miss BJG's post?
I did miss it but I still think Damon then Jeter is the way to go. Damon is a natural lead off hitter and this is where he is comfortable. Jeter is more versatile.

JavyVazquezIsSick
12-31-05, 02:15 AM
I did miss it but I still think Damon then Jeter is the way to go. Damon is a natural lead off hitter and this is where he is comfortable. Jeter is more versatile.

Look if Damon can't move down one spot in the batting order, he's not going to be able to do anything in New York. We aren't asking him to change his approach but just when he does it...

keithf1
12-31-05, 02:35 AM
Look if Damon can't move down one spot in the batting order, he's not going to be able to do anything in New York. We aren't asking him to change his approach but just when he does it...
I understand but they signed him to leadoff. That's all he was talking about in his interviews. He is the self-proclaimed "best leadoff hitter in the majors". Kinda like Marbury being the self-proclaimed "best point guard in the NBA". Anyway, there was obviously discussion of his role on the Yanks prior to him signing and all indications are that he is going to be leading off. He will be a great leadoff hitter for us and Jeter will be a great #2 hitter. They both will be comfortable, the team will be comfortable, and the only people that won't are the critics that want to swap things around to see how Damon would do at the 2 spot.

We all know Torre is going to leadoff Damon unless the Yankees go in a big slump and things need to be shaken up. Just let it go. Damon is going to lead off and Jeter will bat 2nd. Numbers don't mean everything especially when the differences are miniscule.

IMO, it doesn't make much of a difference. I'm just at peace with our new line up because we all know what the line-up card will say on opening day. I think a bigger debate is how the bottom of our order should be aligned and our pitching rotation.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-31-05, 02:39 AM
Johnny Damon?

JavyVazquezIsSick
12-31-05, 02:48 AM
I understand but they signed him to leadoff. That's all he was talking about in his interviews. He is the self-proclaimed "best leadoff hitter in the majors". Kinda like Marbury being the self-proclaimed "best point guard in the NBA".
No they signed him to play CF, where a player would be placed in a lineup isn't often discussed in negotiations...



Anyway, there was obviously discussion of his role on the Yanks prior to him signing and all indications are that he is going to be leading off. He will be a great leadoff hitter for us and Jeter will be a great #2 hitter. They both will be comfortable, the team will be comfortable, and the only people that won't are the critics that want to swap things around to see how Damon would do at the 2 spot.

No they're obviously wasn't. If you can point me towards any type of article where it says that as a prerequisitie to Damon signing a contract with the Yankees he needs to be at leadoff. The media immediately spun him to be leadoff and let Jeter bein his "natural" spot of batting second. But in fact Jeter was probably the best leadoff hitter in baseball. No critics, it would just make the team more productive for the reasons mentioned above.



We all know Torre is going to leadoff Damon unless the Yankees go in a big slump and things need to be shaken up. Just let it go. Damon is going to lead off and Jeter will bat 2nd. Numbers don't mean everything especially when the differences are miniscule.
Yeah, I am sure Torre will too, but it doesn't make it right. These differences could equate to more wins. Why not have the best lineup out there? Because Damon is more comfortable batting 1st?

Stryder2929
12-31-05, 03:17 AM
No they're obviously wasn't. If you can point me towards any type of article where it says that as a prerequisitie to Damon signing a contract with the Yankees he needs to be at leadoff. The media immediately spun him to be leadoff and let Jeter bein his "natural" spot of batting second. But in fact Jeter was probably the best leadoff hitter in baseball. No critics, it would just make the team more productive for the reasons mentioned above.




Johnny Damon: 69 K in 624 AB (1 K per 9 AB)
Derek Jeter: 117 K in 654 AB (1 K per 5.5 AB)

That's a huge difference.

Damon puts the ball in play, puts pressure on fielders.

Damon: 18 SB, 1 CS
Jeter: 14 SB, 5 CS, and Jeter stole 4 after the ASB, and didn't even attempt one for 2 months.

Damon: .331 with RISP
Jeter: .261 with RISP

Damon: .347 with RISP/2 outs
Jeter: .250 with RISP/2 outs

Damon: .321 Close/Late
Jeter: .267 Close/Late

Matsui55
12-31-05, 10:53 AM
Everyone here can post whatever stats they want. This is what will happen.

Damon will leadoff.

Jeter will bat second.

Joe is the manager- you are not. Stats don't mean much to Joe- performance does. Joe loved having Jeter in the 2 hole when Knobby was here, as it gave him more hit and run flexibility, among other options.

Joe won't spend more than 2 seconds before writing in Damon at the top of the lineup for a minimum of 155 games (barring injury).

38Special
12-31-05, 11:00 AM
I stopped reading this thread a week ago. I'm surprised people are still debating the leadoff thing.

YankeePride1967
12-31-05, 11:01 AM
Everyone here can post whatever stats they want. This is what will happen.

Damon will leadoff.

Jeter will bat second.

Joe is the manager- you are not. Stats don't mean much to Joe- performance does. Joe loved having Jeter in the 2 hole when Knobby was here, as it gave him more hit and run flexibility, among other options.

Joe won't spend more than 2 seconds before writing in Damon at the top of the lineup for a minimum of 155 games (barring injury).

Exactly, that's the point of a forum, to post opinions with the realization that it is not will happen.

JDPNYY
12-31-05, 11:08 AM
I stopped reading this thread a week ago. I'm surprised people are still debating the leadoff thing.

I keep thinking the Yankees signed another guy named Damon.





By the way, don't ya think their names would be cooler sounding if they were:

Johnny Jeter
&
Derek Damon

BronxByTheBay
12-31-05, 11:29 AM
I stopped reading this thread a week ago. I'm surprised people are still debating the leadoff thing.

It will never end. There are some who won't be able to mention either guy without then mumbling that Jeter should bat leadoff.

JDPNYY
12-31-05, 11:30 AM
It will never end. There are some who won't be able to mention either guy without then mumbling that Jeter should bat leadoff.

Jeter should bat leadoff.

JDPNYY
12-31-05, 11:31 AM
Jeter should bat leadoff.

Johnny Jeter, that is.

BronxByTheBay
12-31-05, 11:34 AM
They will awake startled in the middle of the night, bolt upright in their beds screaming "JETER SHOULD BAT LEADOFF...WHAT?"

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 11:56 AM
I did miss it but I still think Damon then Jeter is the way to go. Damon is a natural lead off hitter and this is where he is comfortable. Jeter is more versatile.
There you go:


1. How is Jeter a better number 2 hitter by a wide margin? It does't seem like there would be an appreciable difference.

Basically, I'd imagine that Jeter is the hitter that Jeter is and Damon is the hitter that Damon is regardless of where they hit. I don't see some magical skill set that makes one guy head and shoulders better in a particular spot. If you are looking for 2-hole skills though, Damon strikes out less (and therefore puts the ball in play more) yet grounds into double plays at a lesser rate, can hit the ball to the right side, is likely to have about the same power, etc.

I don't think it matters, but if you do, the last time Damon batted 2nd, he got 156 AB there in 2002 and hit .321/.384/.532 vs. .286/.356/.443 overall, so there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Damon can't handle the spot in the lineup.

2. It's conceivable this way too:

R Jeter
L Damon
R Arod
L Giambi
R Sheffield
L Matsui
S Posada
L Cano
S Williams

Seems like Damon did just fine in the #2 spot. What does a "natural leadoff hitter" mean? And how do you become one? And why is Damon a "natural leadoff hitter" but Jeter is not?

yankeebot
12-31-05, 12:02 PM
What does a "natural leadoff hitter" mean? And how do you become one? And why is Damon a "natural leadoff hitter" but Jeter is not?You cannot become one. It is a gift from God. Like a genius IQ or Curt Schilling.

yanksphan
12-31-05, 12:08 PM
There you go:



Seems like Damon did just fine in the #2 spot. What does a "natural leadoff hitter" mean? And how do you become one? And why is Damon a "natural leadoff hitter" but Jeter is not?

I think the key point of BJG's post is


It does't seem like there would be an appreciable difference.

That can go either way. Regardless of who hits 1st or 2nd, the difference is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 12:15 PM
I think the key point of BJG's post is



That can go either way. Regardless of who hits 1st or 2nd, the difference is negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Oh, I completely agree. Damon batting leadoff and Jeter batting 2nd isn't going to do much - but the fact of the matter is that the team would be better (by only a tiny bit) if Jeter was the leadoff guy and Damon was batting 2nd.

I guess I just don't understand why Damon should bat leadoff.

M&M61
12-31-05, 12:22 PM
I stopped reading this thread a week ago. I'm surprised people are still debating the leadoff thing.
Agreed!!!!!

BJG
12-31-05, 12:25 PM
You cannot become one. It is a gift from God. Like a genius IQ or Curt Schilling.

Like a Maradona goal?

BJG
12-31-05, 12:35 PM
I think the key point of BJG's post is

That can go either way. Regardless of who hits 1st or 2nd, the difference is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks, that's where I was going, as I don't get the argument that Jeter is "a better #2 hitter by a wide margin". It just seems like something people say to the point where they believe it. Really, the difference between the Jeter/Damon and Damon/Jeter is so small that I can't imagine it having an impact.

What has always bothered me, I guess, is that the thinking behind Damon/Jeter is a bit flawed, and just because it doesn't hurt in this case, that flawed thinking has resulted in things like Tony Womack batting 2nd for large chunks of time.

M&M61
12-31-05, 12:47 PM
As far as i can remember, Damon has never batted second. and for those that think that you can just put a batter from no 1 to the no 2 spot at will, then you have never played baseball. Jeter has done both and it would be no problem for him. Damon is a different thing altogether.

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 12:59 PM
As far as i can remember, Damon has never batted second. and for those that think that you can just put a batter from no 1 to the no 2 spot at will, then you have never played baseball. Jeter has done both and it would be no problem for him. Damon is a different thing altogether.
Your wrong. Damon has batted 2nd and did it quite well. I'll quote BJG's post again:


Basically, I'd imagine that Jeter is the hitter that Jeter is and Damon is the hitter that Damon is regardless of where they hit. I don't see some magical skill set that makes one guy head and shoulders better in a particular spot. If you are looking for 2-hole skills though, Damon strikes out less (and therefore puts the ball in play more) yet grounds into double plays at a lesser rate, can hit the ball to the right side, is likely to have about the same power, etc.

I don't think it matters, but if you do, the last time Damon batted 2nd, he got 156 AB there in 2002 and hit .321/.384/.532 vs. .286/.356/.443 overall, so there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Damon can't handle the spot in the lineup.

ring403
12-31-05, 12:59 PM
As far as i can remember, Damon has never batted second.Actually, Damon has hit in every single spot in the order during his career.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5484/situational?year=career&type=Batting

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 01:07 PM
Actually, Damon has hit in every single spot in the order during his career.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5484/situational?year=career&type=Batting
And with that, there goes that argument...

What's left?

Ivoted4Kodos
12-31-05, 02:00 PM
Johnny Jeter, that is.

If only our Johnny Jeter was as good as this one: http://www.baseballreference.com/j/jeterjo01.shtml

keithf1
12-31-05, 04:01 PM
There you go:



Seems like Damon did just fine in the #2 spot. What does a "natural leadoff hitter" mean? And how do you become one? And why is Damon a "natural leadoff hitter" but Jeter is not?

Maybe you should manage the Yankees. You seem to know everything and your opinion is the way it should be in every thread. Tone down the arrogance and do us all a favor.


Your wrong. Damon has batted 2nd and did it quite well. I'll quote BJG's post again:
It is also "you're wrong" not "your wrong" Mr. College student. You are probably attending a very fine institution so they can get that cleared up for you. I don't appreciate your (notice correct usage of the word) mocking of me so I decided to bring up this simple gramatical error. After all, you are perfect aren't you? You felt the need to talk down to me so I will treat you the same way.

As for showing that you do in fact not know what you're talking about:

If Damon had hit in the #2 hole 156 times that year, that is only 0.025% of his total career at-bats. Nice sample size buddy.

If you want to look at his entire career, he has hit 318 times in the #2 hole at a .286 clip with a .348 OBP. He hits .290 with a .353 OBP leading off.

Don't talk to me like I am an idiot. Happy new year.

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 04:08 PM
Maybe you should manage the Yankees. You seem to know everything and your opinion is the way it should be in every thread. Tone down the arrogance and do us all a favor.
I was asking a legit question. I don't know what a "natural leadoff hitter" is and I was wondering why Damon would be a "natural leadoff hitter" and Jeter isn't. I really do want to know, I'm sorry you were so offended by the question.

As for me managing the Yankees, I don't think I'd do a good job nor have I been offered the job. If I was, I'd have to pass as it's not for me. In a message board, I saw your post and was wondering about it. I didn't realize how sensitive you were. Next time I will.


It is also "you're wrong" not "your wrong" Mr. College student. You are probably attending a very fine institution. I don't appreciate your (notice correct usage of the word) mocking of me either so I decided to bring this up. You felt the need to talk down to me so I will do the same to you.

If Damon had hit in the #2 hole 156 times that year, that is only 0.025% of his total career at-bats. Nice sample size buddy.

If you want to look at his entire career, he has hit 318 times in his career at the #2 hole at a .286 clip with a .348 OBP. He hits .290 with a .353 OBP leading off.

Don't talk to me like I am an idiot.
Thanks for the grammer lesson. Whoops, I meant grammar lesson. Either way, thank you.

Once again, I was not mocking you. I was wondering what makes a true leadoff hitter. (Still wondering by the way).

That wasn't me that posted that. I quoted someone else who posted that. Either way, 156 AB's isn't too bad of a sample size and his great success shows that he can handle the #2 spot. If it was 12 AB's, sure, that's nothing. But 156 AB's is a good amount. By the way, I don't care what percentage of his career AB's that is.

Thanks for the career stats at #2. So, that's a better sample size and it looks like he hits in the #2 spot as well as he hits leadoff. So, the point that he can handle the #2 spot just fine holds.

I'll try not to. Please try not to be so sensitive next time.

keithf1
12-31-05, 04:09 PM
If only our Johnny Jeter was as good as this one: http://www.baseballreference.com/j/jeterjo01.shtml
Nice find, lol.

longtimeyankeefan
12-31-05, 04:12 PM
The truth of the matter is that, statistically, there is little difference for either Jeter or Damon with respect to their hitting in the 1 or 2 spot with respects to their individual stats.

IMO, Jeter would be the better #2 hitter. It is my belief that he has better bat control than Johnny Damon and would be more likely to take advantage of the holes on the right side that are created when Damon is on first and running. Damon is also more of a base stealer than Jeter, so, if you are going to institute a running game, I would have Damon in front of Jeter.

Just my two cents.

keithf1
12-31-05, 04:15 PM
The truth of the matter is that, statistically, there is little difference for either Jeter or Damon with respect to their hitting in the 1 or 2 spot with respects to their individual stats.

IMO, Jeter would be the better #2 hitter. It is my belief that he has better bat control than Johnny Damon and would be more likely to take advantage of the holes on the right side that are created when Damon is on first and running. Damon is also more of a base stealer than Jeter, so, if you are going to institute a running game, I would have Damon in front of Jeter.

Just my two cents.
Thank you. I think most people that are arguing Jeter to hit leadoff are just the typical difficult ones that are never satisfied. We have a great line up people. It's going to be great either way. There is no need to put it in your signature or bable on for 5 pages about how Jeter should lead off. Get over it!!!!

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 04:17 PM
The truth of the matter is that, statistically, there is little difference for either Jeter or Damon with respect to their hitting in the 1 or 2 spot with respects to their individual stats.

IMO, Jeter would be the better #2 hitter. It is my belief that he has better bat control than Johnny Damon and would be more likely to take advantage of the holes on the right side that are created when Damon is on first and running. Damon is also more of a base stealer than Jeter, so, if you are going to institute a running game, I would have Damon in front of Jeter.

Just my two cents.
My reasons for Damon batting 2nd. 1. Damon grounds into less DP's. 2. Damon strikes out almost half as much and thus puts the ball in play more than Jeter. 3. Even though Jeter is great at taking the ball the other way, Damon is a lefty and would, at the very least, be able to take advantage of that hole as much as Jeter. 4. Jeter is a better hitter than Damon and your leadoff hitter gets about 30 more AB's than your #2 hitter so might as well, especially given the former 3 points, give him those extra AB's.

But, like I've said, it's not a big deal either way. I think maybe batting Jeter leadoff would lead to a few more runs which might lead to an extra win though.

ring403
12-31-05, 04:17 PM
Maybe you should manage the Yankees. You seem to know everything and your opinion is the way it should be in every thread. Tone down the arrogance and do us all a favor.


It is also "you're wrong" not "your wrong" Mr. College student. You are probably attending a very fine institution so they can get that cleared up for you. I don't appreciate your (notice correct usage of the word) mocking of me so I decided to bring up this simple gramatical error. After all, you are perfect aren't you? You felt the need to talk down to me so I will treat you the same way.

As for showing that you do in fact not know what you're talking about:

If Damon had hit in the #2 hole 156 times that year, that is only 0.025% of his total career at-bats. Nice sample size buddy.

If you want to look at his entire career, he has hit 318 times in the #2 hole at a .286 clip with a .348 OBP. He hits .290 with a .353 OBP leading off.

Don't talk to me like I am an idiot. Happy new year.
I suggest you check the Community Standards (http://www.nyyfans.com/communityStandards.php) before deciding to make another post like that here. Thanks.

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 04:20 PM
Thank you. I think most people that are arguing Jeter to hit leadoff are just the typical difficult ones that are never satisfied. We have a great line up people. It's going to be great either way. There is no need to put it in your signature or bable on for 5 pages about how Jeter should lead off. Get over it!!!!
This is a message board. And nothing is really going on with baseball. We were discussing which player is the better leadoff hitter (we all know who will actually bat leadoff and who will actually bat 2nd) and that's what you do on message boards - especially with nothing else going on.

Yes, it will be great either way.

For the record, I've only babbled about it today. Also for the record, I, and I think everyone, is over it. We just want to understand the argument for batting Damon leadoff instead of Jeter without the meaningless argument that Damon is a "natural leadoff hitter."

Cappy
12-31-05, 04:35 PM
Well, one argument could be that Jeter is a more versatile hitter. He can hit for power when he wants to, he can go the other way, he can drop a bunt better than most, or pretty much anything else. Certainly better than Damon.

So maybe the argument should be that Jeter will be a better #2 hitter with a base stealing threat in front of him than Damon would be with a semi-threat in Jeter in front of him.

montrealer
12-31-05, 04:39 PM
A couple of Sox fans from N.H. came in to Hurleys Pub last nite and are pretty much in denial.They kept saying it was for the best.Not a big deal.
An hour later I went to the bathroom and one of them was either puking or sobbing....coundn`t tell. :lol:

JeffWeaverFan
12-31-05, 05:01 PM
Well, one argument could be that Jeter is a more versatile hitter. He can hit for power when he wants to, he can go the other way, he can drop a bunt better than most, or pretty much anything else. Certainly better than Damon.

So maybe the argument should be that Jeter will be a better #2 hitter with a base stealing threat in front of him than Damon would be with a semi-threat in Jeter in front of him.
Jeter has a bit more power than Damon, yes. Jeter can go the other way as well as anyone, but Damon is a lefty which is better for a #2 hitter in that he'll have the hole open on his pull side. Damon can drop down a bunt just as well as Jeter and, I think that Jeter bunts way too much when he's batting 2nd. Numerous times in 2004 he would bunt Lofton over in the 1st innings of games instead of swinging the bat. Jeter is too good of a hitter to be wasting an out like that so early in the game.

Jeter also grounds into many more DP's than Damon and strikes out much more - both of those qualities for Damon makes him better for the #2 hitter.

And I disagree with that argument. Firstly, I think that Damon is better than Jeter in with a guy on 1st base because he's a lefty, hits into less DP's, and strikes out less. Secondly, Damon isn't much more of a basestealing threat compared to Jeter. Both steal about 15-20 bases a year at a good rate at this stage in their respective careers.

Cappy
12-31-05, 06:10 PM
First of all... I wasn't necessarily supporting the Jeter in the #2 spot argument. I was just saying that maybe the argument isn't about people saying Damon is a better leadoff hitter, but rather being a better #2 hitter than Damon. That it's a better fit. Okay?


Jeter has a bit more power than Damon, yes. Jeter can go the other way as well as anyone, but Damon is a lefty which is better for a #2 hitter in that he'll have the hole open on his pull side. Damon can drop down a bunt just as well as Jeter and, I think that Jeter bunts way too much when he's batting 2nd. Numerous times in 2004 he would bunt Lofton over in the 1st innings of games instead of swinging the bat. Jeter is too good of a hitter to be wasting an out like that so early in the game.
Whatever. My point was that he's more versatile. It doesn't matter that Damon is lefty and can pull the ball. My point was that Jeter is able to adapt to any situation better than most players. It's not that Jeter HAS less power... it's that he USES it less. No lie, I think he could hit 30+ homers per year, if he was asked to. But he doesn't. He plays his role on the team.

Whether he should or should not be bunting in the first inning of games is an entirely different argument, and really has no place here.... because it's entirely hypothetical, anyway. Bunting/not bunting has more to do with calls from the dugout.


Jeter also grounds into many more DP's than Damon and strikes out much more - both of those qualities for Damon makes him better for the #2 hitter.
Grounding into DP's isn't necessarily a function of their capabilities.


And I disagree with that argument. Firstly, I think that Damon is better than Jeter in with a guy on 1st base because he's a lefty, hits into less DP's, and strikes out less. Secondly, Damon isn't much more of a basestealing threat compared to Jeter. Both steal about 15-20 bases a year at a good rate at this stage in their respective careers.
And I disagree with this argument.

Damon is faster than Jeter. And while he might hit into less DP's than Jeter... Damon will also be more effective on the bases in a hit-and-run situation than Jeter would be.

There are pros and cons to both sides, I'm sure. But we know Jeter has done very well batting second. We have a much smaller sample size with Damon there.

And -- while I am normally all for stats -- I think there is something to be said for the dynamics of a lineup. I could see why people would think that batting Damon first and Jeter second would be more comfortable for all involved.

keithf1
12-31-05, 10:02 PM
Cappy, I really like how you broke that down. The only thing I have a question on is Damon really faster than Jeter? I'm not sure.

Nuke LaLoosh
01-01-06, 12:30 AM
Happy New Year!!! 27 in '06.

BJG
01-01-06, 09:01 AM
IMO, Jeter would be the better #2 hitter. It is my belief that he has better bat control than Johnny Damon and would be more likely to take advantage of the holes on the right side that are created when Damon is on first and running. Damon is also more of a base stealer than Jeter, so, if you are going to institute a running game, I would have Damon in front of Jeter.

Just my two cents.

This is the argument I don't get. If Damon strikes out less and, therefore, puts the ball in play more, how is Jeter the one more likely to advance the runner?

If Damon hits it to the right side, as his hit chart shows, how is he less likely to take advantage of that hole if Jeter is on first? Is the opposition not going to hold Jeter on?

Finally, it's kind of moot as the Yankees aren't going to start stealing bases in front of AROD, Giambi, Sheffield, and Matsui, but how is Damon more of a basestealer now? Like Jeter, he's toned it down a good deal as he has gotten older. In fact, they attempted the same number of steals last year and Jeter actually attempted more the year before.

gdn
01-01-06, 09:19 AM
I'm sorry, but this just made me laugh:
http://www.nypost.com/photos/yankslead1012006.jpg

BJG
01-01-06, 09:25 AM
First of all... I wasn't necessarily supporting the Jeter in the #2 spot argument. I was just saying that maybe the argument isn't about people saying Damon is a better leadoff hitter, but rather being a better #2 hitter than Damon. That it's a better fit. Okay?

Yes, but the people who say that, specifically the people who say that Jeter is a substantially better #2 hitter than Damon, don't seem to be backing it up with any kind of factual data.


Whatever. My point was that he's more versatile. It doesn't matter that Damon is lefty and can pull the ball. My point was that Jeter is able to adapt to any situation better than most players. It's not that Jeter HAS less power... it's that he USES it less. No lie, I think he could hit 30+ homers per year, if he was asked to. But he doesn't. He plays his role on the team.

Prove that Jeter is more versatile. How is he more adaptable than Damon (who, as mentioned above, has been used in every spot in the order)? How is he better able to hit the ball to both fields? How is he a better bunter? How does Damon play his role less?

Here are hit charts, splits, etc. to help.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_player_hitting_chart.jsp?playerID=113028&statType=1 http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_player_hitting_chart.jsp?playerID=116539&statType=1
http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/damonjo01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jeterde01.shtml
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=3323
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=3246

I look at all that and I don't see any evidence that Jeter and Damon are different at the skills you are talking about.


Whether he should or should not be bunting in the first inning of games is an entirely different argument, and really has no place here.... because it's entirely hypothetical, anyway. Bunting/not bunting has more to do with calls from the dugout.

I'd say it does, as Jeter apparently does it on his own despite being asked to swing away.


Grounding into DP's isn't necessarily a function of their capabilities.

In this case, it appears to be. Jeter's groundball rate is much higher than Damon's year after year. More groundballs = more double plays.



And I disagree with this argument.

Damon is faster than Jeter. And while he might hit into less DP's than Jeter... Damon will also be more effective on the bases in a hit-and-run situation than Jeter would be.

Damon is faster than Jeter? I don't think that's true. Somewhere, I've got some times home to first and, given lefty righty differences, I seem to recall them being basically the same speed. They are both about the same as basestealers. If anything, Jeter is the slightly better baserunner, though not by much, as it is one of his best skills.


There are pros and cons to both sides, I'm sure. But we know Jeter has done very well batting second. We have a much smaller sample size with Damon there.

Jeter is the hitter Jeter is. Damon is the hitter Damon is. There is no evidence that moving around in the order does a thing to their performance.


And -- while I am normally all for stats -- I think there is something to be said for the dynamics of a lineup. I could see why people would think that batting Damon first and Jeter second would be more comfortable for all involved.

That's not a reason that's given, though. Instead, people try to argue that Damon/Jeter will somehow lead to a lot more runs than Jeter/Damon. In all honesty, Jeter wanting to hit second is apparently the only reason to bat Damon first, and even that sets a bad precedent. Just because it's probably a wash in this situation, it doesn't mean management should start letting the players dictate what is best for the team. They've already done that with Jeter before.

noneckwilliams
01-01-06, 11:36 AM
A couple of Sox fans from N.H. came in to Hurleys Pub last nite and are pretty much in denial.They kept saying it was for the best.Not a big deal.
An hour later I went to the bathroom and one of them was either puking or sobbing....coundn`t tell. :lol:

You just added to my New Year's resolutions - spend a weekend in Montreal. Love your city - too bad Bud took the Expos away.

Cappy
01-01-06, 12:31 PM
Yes, but the people who say that, specifically the people who say that Jeter is a substantially better #2 hitter than Damon, don't seem to be backing it up with any kind of factual data.
Hmm... that is a bit of a problem. Let's take a look then, shall we?


Prove that Jeter is more versatile. How is he more adaptable than Damon (who, as mentioned above, has been used in every spot in the order)? How is he better able to hit the ball to both fields? How is he a better bunter? How does Damon play his role less?

Here are hit charts, splits, etc. to help.

I look at all that and I don't see any evidence that Jeter and Damon are different at the skills you are talking about.
Really? No evidence at all? You sure you were looking at the same charts I was? ;)

Look at a few things here:

1. Damon flies out much more. While this might mean less double plays, it also means less advancing the runners. Especially when you consider that his fly balls tend to be all over the place... with many many many many more of them winding up in the infield. Jeter only had five infield pop outs (at home). Damon had at LEAST 20.

2. When Jeter grounds out, it does tend to be to the left side. When he flies out, it tends to be to the right side. By a lot. This is pretty standard for a right-handed hitter, no? Pull the ball on the ground, fly out the other way. Damon does the same thing. If there's a runner on second, where do you want the fly ball going? But I'm not sure if this is by design or not. I'd need to see the situational breakdown.... i.e. how many times did he ground to SS when there was a runner on second vs. when no one was on. But I get the feeling that -- if a hit and run is on -- Jeter can go the other way. It's hard to find stats on this... but judging from the way that Damon seems to spray the ball, and the amount of pop-ups he has... I'd put my money on Jeter putting a ball on the ground to the right side ahead of Damon being able to pull a grounder.

3. Look at Jeter's singles... by far, his singles wind up in right or right center. Same with his doubles (although that doesn't matter as much for advancing runners. You'd expect anyone to score from first.)

4. Here's an interesting statistical comparision that might be fitting:

Jeter's batting average, OBP and SLG with a runner on first: .345/.401/.466.
Damon's batting average, OBP, and SLG with a runner on first: .307/.360/.429

Who would you want batting second if the other one leads off a game with a single or a walk?


I'd say it does, as Jeter apparently does it on his own despite being asked to swing away.
Apparently?


In this case, it appears to be. Jeter's groundball rate is much higher than Damon's year after year. More groundballs = more double plays.
Situational context needs to be applied here. More groundballs with runners on? More groundballs when a fly ball is needed? Although stats do tend to play out fairly consistently across situations over long enough periods of time (showing overall hitter trends), I still think it is important to follow situational stats. As of right now, I don't know where to find hitting charts for this. I can look at the splits, but that doesn't tell me the information I need to know to analyze this properly.

In any case, the arguments AGAINST Jeter batting second are - if anything - inconclusive without the situational hitting charts.


Damon is faster than Jeter? I don't think that's true. Somewhere, I've got some times home to first and, given lefty righty differences, I seem to recall them being basically the same speed. They are both about the same as basestealers. If anything, Jeter is the slightly better baserunner, though not by much, as it is one of his best skills.
I'd like to see those home to first times. I'm almost positive that Damon is faster. Jeter might be a slightly overall better baserunner, but I'm pretty darn sure Damon is a good bit faster.


Jeter is the hitter Jeter is. Damon is the hitter Damon is. There is no evidence that moving around in the order does a thing to their performance.
Yes and no. Lineup placement does affect your approach as a hitter. If it don't think it does, you've never played baseball.


That's not a reason that's given, though. Instead, people try to argue that Damon/Jeter will somehow lead to a lot more runs than Jeter/Damon. In all honesty, Jeter wanting to hit second is apparently the only reason to bat Damon first, and even that sets a bad precedent. Just because it's probably a wash in this situation, it doesn't mean management should start letting the players dictate what is best for the team. They've already done that with Jeter before.
If it's basically a wash, and all it comes down to is a matter of comfort, then yes... Jeter SHOULD bat second. Again -- I'm all for stats -- but if you don't believe in the dynamics of lineup placement, all I can say is that you've probably never played baseball.


A few final points:

1. As I said before, there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument, I'm sure. Either side could be argued statistically, ad infinitum. And either way, the Yanks are a better team than last year. Which is really the only bottom line I truly care about.

2. I don't know if it's really fair to put the ENTIRE burden of proof on the other side. It's very easy to sit there and say, "Prove it. Prove it. Prove it." when people make any claim you don't want to agree with. I see it all the time on internet message boards, so I expect it. Some of it is a bit ridiculous, though. How, exactly, does one "prove" that Jeter is more versatile in the lineup? What "proof" would people accept? I doubt any. They already believe what they want to believe. This is especially true in cases where you CAN'T really prove anything, because it's impossible to weight all the evidence accurately. For example, in a game, what's more important... the ability to advance a runner with a fly ball, or the ability to execute a hit-and-run? Or who is a better choice from the bullpen to face Ortiz... A LOOGY who has held all lefties to a .185 BAA, but never faced Ortiz in his career? Or a righty against whom Ortiz has a .236 career BA in 80 PAs?

What do you give more importance to in those situations? You can't rightly say. Because it depends on the situation. Oh, sure... you could argue the merits of one side or the other all day long... but the bottom line is, you can't say.

Again... I'm not really too hung up on where Jeter/Damon should bat, so I'm not feeling much of a need to "prove" it. I do, however, enjoy debating these kinds of topics, whether or not there is a definitive answer (which I don't believe there is).... hence this novel I've written

EPILOGUE :P

So to sum up my summing up... I don't believe any one side more than the other. I think it's too complex to really be sorted out, and I don't have all the information I need to make a fully-informed analysis. I do, however, think that the high-and-mighty, end-all be-all, No Way It Could Be Anything Other Than What I Believe attitude championed by some people is a little much. (Not saying you, specifically, do this.)

There's a lot of information that needs to go into this. And I'm a big stats guy, too. But I do think that over-reliance on stats in these kinds of situations can be detrimental to the success of a team (assuming the manager was acting on all of these statistics). If it really is just a question of comfort -- and probably comfort for BOTH players, since Damon is used to batting leadoff -- I'd say, give it to 'em. Whatever slight edge you may (or may not) lose in statistical advantage, you could gain right back in psychological advantages.

BJG
01-01-06, 02:35 PM
Hmm... that is a bit of a problem. Let's take a look then, shall we?

1. Damon flies out much more. While this might mean less double plays, it also means less advancing the runners. Especially when you consider that his fly balls tend to be all over the place... with many many many many more of them winding up in the infield. Jeter only had five infield pop outs (at home). Damon had at LEAST 20.

2. When Jeter grounds out, it does tend to be to the left side. When he flies out, it tends to be to the right side. By a lot. This is pretty standard for a right-handed hitter, no? Pull the ball on the ground, fly out the other way. Damon does the same thing. If there's a runner on second, where do you want the fly ball going? But I'm not sure if this is by design or not. I'd need to see the situational breakdown.... i.e. how many times did he ground to SS when there was a runner on second vs. when no one was on. But I get the feeling that -- if a hit and run is on -- Jeter can go the other way. It's hard to find stats on this... but judging from the way that Damon seems to spray the ball, and the amount of pop-ups he has... I'd put my money on Jeter putting a ball on the ground to the right side ahead of Damon being able to pull a grounder.

The problem is that, despite the greater number of overall fly balls, Damon actually grounds the ball to the right side MORE than Jeter. What you are proposing is that Jeter change his game so that he can do what Damon already does. You are also suggesting that Damon does not possess a similar ability. As you yourself point out, perhaps you need more data. If you don't have the data, though, don't make the conclusion.


3. Look at Jeter's singles... by far, his singles wind up in right or right center. Same with his doubles (although that doesn't matter as much for advancing runners. You'd expect anyone to score from first.)

Again, where is the difference in the amount of singles Damon hits to right?


4. Here's an interesting statistical comparision that might be fitting:

Jeter's batting average, OBP and SLG with a runner on first: .345/.401/.466.
Damon's batting average, OBP, and SLG with a runner on first: .307/.360/.429

Who would you want batting second if the other one leads off a game with a single or a walk?

Jeter is gaurenteed to lead off once a game. If you start making decisions based on what happens when he is on first base in those situations, you're pushing the bounds of the impact. We already know that Jeter is a better hitter. I'd like to give the better hitter more plate appearences. So sure, Damon may not get as many hits as Jeter with a man on first. However, Jeter will offer more opportunities for Damon to have a guy on first than Damon will for Jeter. Heck, if you really want to parse things, Jeter's OPS is 150 points higher over the last 3 years leading off an inning. Damon's been better with runners in scoring position, something he would have less opportunity to exploit in front of Jeter.


Apparently?

Yes, Torre has said that Jeter bunts on his own.


Situational context needs to be applied here. More groundballs with runners on? More groundballs when a fly ball is needed? Although stats do tend to play out fairly consistently across situations over long enough periods of time (showing overall hitter trends), I still think it is important to follow situational stats. As of right now, I don't know where to find hitting charts for this. I can look at the splits, but that doesn't tell me the information I need to know to analyze this properly.

In any case, the arguments AGAINST Jeter batting second are - if anything - inconclusive without the situational hitting charts.

For the most part, hitters are who hitters are. There's a reason that Jeter grounds into more double plays than Damon. There's a reason that Damon grounds out to the right side more often. Chances are, if you tried to extrapolate these things into situations, you'd find that the same basic trends apply. Again, your argument seems to be that a) Jeter is going to change his game to match the game that Damon already has and b) if Damon didn't have that game, he'd be incapable of making the same kind of change.


I'd like to see those home to first times. I'm almost positive that Damon is faster. Jeter might be a slightly overall better baserunner, but I'm pretty darn sure Damon is a good bit faster.

I just don't think that's the case. And again, it isn't so great a difference that it is going to have an impact either way.


Yes and no. Lineup placement does affect your approach as a hitter. If it don't think it does, you've never played baseball.

Some players do seem to be quite effected by where they hit in the lineupl. For Jeter and Damon, it does not appear to have had any effect on their overall performance.



If it's basically a wash, and all it comes down to is a matter of comfort, then yes... Jeter SHOULD bat second. Again -- I'm all for stats -- but if you don't believe in the dynamics of lineup placement, all I can say is that you've probably never played baseball.

If I am the manager of the team, the players play for me. This is not a situation where I am asking Jeter to do something he has never done or that he can't do. I'm asking to do what he has been doing quite well for a number of seasons. I am asking him to keep doing it because it is better for the team. If I start to back down to the wishes of the players in situations like this, then it isn't my team anymore. Now, maybe Torre has let players get their way too long to start changing things now, but that doesn't make it a good thing.


A few final points:

1. As I said before, there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument, I'm sure. Either side could be argued statistically, ad infinitum. And either way, the Yanks are a better team than last year. Which is really the only bottom line I truly care about.

Yes, there are pros and cons. That's the problem with definitive statements like Jeter would be much better in the #2 slot or Jeter can 'adapt' better than Damon, especially without at least some kind of rational argument to back such statements up. As I've noted countless times (and based on a hell of a lot more in depth study of lineup construction than we are getting into here, and I'm pretty sure I've posted links somewhere in this thread to optimal lineup studies), there is no real difference between the two lineup constructions. That doesn't mean I will sit by while people claim that there would be a big difference with either no argument or yet more fuzzy statements as the only proof.


2. I don't know if it's really fair to put the ENTIRE burden of proof on the other side. It's very easy to sit there and say, "Prove it. Prove it. Prove it." when people make any claim you don't want to agree with. I see it all the time on internet message boards, so I expect it. Some of it is a bit ridiculous, though. How, exactly, does one "prove" that Jeter is more versatile in the lineup? What "proof" would people accept? I doubt any. They already believe what they want to believe. This is especially true in cases where you CAN'T really prove anything, because it's impossible to weight all the evidence accurately. For example, in a game, what's more important... the ability to advance a runner with a fly ball, or the ability to execute a hit-and-run? Or who is a better choice from the bullpen to face Ortiz... A LOOGY who has held all lefties to a .185 BAA, but never faced Ortiz in his career? Or a righty against whom Ortiz has a .236 career BA in 80 PAs?

What do you give more importance to in those situations? You can't rightly say. Because it depends on the situation. Oh, sure... you could argue the merits of one side or the other all day long... but the bottom line is, you can't say.

Again... I'm not really too hung up on where Jeter/Damon should bat, so I'm not feeling much of a need to "prove" it. I do, however, enjoy debating these kinds of topics, whether or not there is a definitive answer (which I don't believe there is).... hence this novel I've written

I could not disagree more. If someone makes a statement that Jeter is a substantially better #2 hitter than Damon or that Jeter is more adaptable than Damon is, then they do in fact need to offer some proof. Those are opinions, and simply floating an opinion as fact does lead me to ask to prove their opinion. If they have no reason for their argument, then they have no argument...they have a conclusion that they have created a backstory around in order to support. If they keep repeating this backstory enough, eventually, they believe it is true regardless of the facts. Baseball is a quantifiable game...you either score runs or you prevent runs. If you believe something is good yet you can't figure out how it scores more or prevents more runs, then maybe it isn't good. If you believe something exists but it isn't quantifiable, then whether it exists or not, who cares if it doesn't change anything?

StaceyRosie
01-01-06, 02:39 PM
You guys have to divide your posts up I have ADD and can't read that much at one time. Good god.

YankeePride1967
01-01-06, 02:42 PM
You guys have to divide your posts up I have ADD and can't read that much at one time. Good god.

I believe they get paid by the word. If a post is more than a few paragraphs (paragraphs, meaning under 1,000 words) long I just skip it. I'm assuming it has to do with Jeter or Damon leading off.

Kulish29
01-01-06, 02:51 PM
I'm sorry, but this just made me laugh:
http://www.nypost.com/photos/yankslead1012006.jpg


Kinda has that "How you doin?" vibe to it.

Saxmania
01-01-06, 02:52 PM
I believe they get paid by the word.

I . . . I couldn't be prouder. (Sobs)

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

keithf1
01-01-06, 04:07 PM
Torre is going to hit Damon lead off. You just wasted a lot of energy for nothing.

yankeebot
01-01-06, 04:18 PM
Torre is going to hit Damon lead off. You just wasted a lot of energy for nothing.Not a waste of energy at all! I have thoroughly enjoyed lurking around this discussion and learned quite a bit from it. Yes, at times it is repetitive but I do not have the time to search out and evaluate the amount of data that is given to me here on a daily basis.

JeffWeaverFan
01-01-06, 04:35 PM
Torre is going to hit Damon lead off. You just wasted a lot of energy for nothing.
As have you. Do you not understand what a message board is for? Or do you no longer have a reason to believe that Damon should leadoff except for your genius "Damon is a natural leadoff hitter" argument?

YankeePride1967
01-01-06, 04:38 PM
Torre is going to hit Damon lead off. You just wasted a lot of energy for nothing.

Under that logic, ANY post on ANY sports forum is "wasted energy for nothing".

shutout
01-01-06, 04:43 PM
Not a waste of energy at all! I have thoroughly enjoyed lurking around this discussion and learned quite a bit from it. Yes, at times it is repetitive but I do not have the time to search out and evaluate the amount of data that is given to me here on a daily basis.

I agree completely.

JavyVazquezIsSick
01-01-06, 04:48 PM
BJG is my hero...

Cappy
01-01-06, 08:30 PM
Sigh... for the SECOND time in my attempt to reply... "Internet Explorer experienced a problem and needed to close." So I will keep this one short.

(You're welcome. :P )

BJG, you seem to be missing my overall point. And ironically, in doing so, you are actually helping me to prove it.

Look, you're talking to a guy whose member title on another message board is "Quantify My Luck." So believe me, I'm all for evidence and data to back up an argument. And you also seem to be missing the fact that - for the most part - I AGREE with you.

My initial claim was only that people seem to have reached an impasse where they are misunderstanding the arguments of the other side. Or that they don't want to consider the evidence of the other side valid, and so resort to calling them irrational, among other things.

I don't think anyone is approaching this irrationally. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, judging by some of the responses, that everyone seems to be approaching it with the same healthy degree of irrationality. But ultimately, I think people are forming different conclusions from the same evidence.... of which there is plenty. For both sides.

But it seems that no one will ever budge from the side they want to believe, or the side they initially chose... regardless of evidence... for a couple of reasons, best I can tell. One, there's not enough one-sided evidence to make much of a difference in the first place. Two, I can only assume they feel they need to be "right." (Or maybe that it is their solemn duty to call people out, lest they hold opinions that may or may not be "fact." *rolleyes*)

Me? I don't really believe in one side or the other. But I don't discount that there is evidence for both sides.

BJG
01-01-06, 09:40 PM
Sigh... for the SECOND time in my attempt to reply... "Internet Explorer experienced a problem and needed to close." So I will keep this one short.

(You're welcome. :P )

BJG, you seem to be missing my overall point. And ironically, in doing so, you are actually helping me to prove it.

Look, you're talking to a guy whose member title on another message board is "Quantify My Luck." So believe me, I'm all for evidence and data to back up an argument. And you also seem to be missing the fact that - for the most part - I AGREE with you.

My initial claim was only that people seem to have reached an impasse where they are misunderstanding the arguments of the other side. Or that they don't want to consider the evidence of the other side valid, and so resort to calling them irrational, among other things.

I don't think anyone is approaching this irrationally. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, judging by some of the responses, that everyone seems to be approaching it with the same healthy degree of irrationality. But ultimately, I think people are forming different conclusions from the same evidence.... of which there is plenty. For both sides.

But it seems that no one will ever budge from the side they want to believe, or the side they initially chose... regardless of evidence... for a couple of reasons, best I can tell. One, there's not enough one-sided evidence to make much of a difference in the first place. Two, I can only assume they feel they need to be "right." (Or maybe that it is their solemn duty to call people out, lest they hold opinions that may or may not be "fact." *rolleyes*)

Me? I don't really believe in one side or the other. But I don't discount that there is evidence for both sides.

The problem, of course, is that you are the one who is trying to argue that Jeter is better in the 2 hole because he is more adaptable. Whether you are doing it merely to play the devil's advocate or because you believe it seems irrelevant to me. Even if you have come to the same basic conclusion, if thoughts like these are a part of how you got there, then I'm afraid we don't actually agree.

You offer nothing to prove Jeter's adaptability, nothing to disprove Damon's adaptability, no standard to which you would wish the players to adapt, no comparison of where the players are now versus that standard, etc. That isn't evidence for any side, and that's the problem. I have no issue with a well thought out theory as to why Jeter is more adaptable. You didn't offer one...you just said you'd bet he could do it. What we know about lineup construction seems to suggest that the difference between Damon/Jeter and Jeter/Damon is likely only a few runs a season...not enough to really impact anything (Tom Ruane has some good stuff on this at http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/lineup_art.htm). I would welcome any reasonable study that suggests otherwise...something that would show that the team really would be much better off if Jeter batted second as was earlier suggested despite the prevailing wisdom as discussed by Ruane and others or something that would show how Jeter's adaptability made this possible.

If this is an unreasonable request because people are going to believe what they are going to believe no matter what, then I guess I'm unreasonable.

Cappy
01-01-06, 10:50 PM
The problem, of course, is that you are the one who is trying to argue that Jeter is better in the 2 hole because he is more adaptable. Whether you are doing it merely to play the devil's advocate or because you believe it seems irrelevant to me. Even if you have come to the same basic conclusion, if thoughts like these are a part of how you got there, then I'm afraid we don't actually agree.
No. That is not that ONLY reason I gave why Jeter would be better batting second. It's the only one you care to harp on, though. And it's not entirely irrelevant why I am arguing this... because I was trying to illustrate that the other side of the argument has some validity. Not that it's correct. Merely that it is not completely irrational, and that there is evidence on both sides... that there are pros and cons to both sides.

In fact, you AGREED with that statement before, did you not?


You offer nothing to prove Jeter's adaptability, nothing to disprove Damon's adaptability, no standard to which you would wish the players to adapt, no comparison of where the players are now versus that standard, etc. That isn't evidence for any side, and that's the problem. I have no issue with a well thought out theory as to why Jeter is more adaptable.
Evidence that Jeter is more adaptable? Or statistical evidence that Jeter could be better batting second? Because I've offered evidence for the latter, if not the former.

And it is the latter that is the topic of this debate... the former was one statement that seems to be that with which you are taking issue.

So fine.

I will withdraw that statement, because I do not care to spend time researching how Jeter is more versatile than Damon in order to support the side of an argument that I chose only because it seemed SOME people were kind of being rather disrespectful and/or smug regarding the manner in which they approached the debate.

Go figure.

But don't get me wrong. I know there is statistical evidence out there supporting just about any claim. I just don't feel like finding it. I mean, do you feel like going and finding me those home-to-first times because I absolutely refuse to believe you without "proof"? Is this important enough to you? Because it's not to me.


You didn't offer one...you just said you'd bet he could do it.
I didn't say "I'd bet he could do it." I said he is more versatile. If you don't want to believe this, you are by no means obligated to. I could try to find the statistics and set it up in a way that would prove this... but as I said, it's not important enough to me, for one... and secondly, you would try to refute it any way possible if I did present it. It's just not worth the trouble.

Let's just pretend that statement never happened.


What we know about lineup construction seems to suggest that the difference between Damon/Jeter and Jeter/Damon is likely only a few runs a season...not enough to really impact anything (Tom Ruane has some good stuff on this at http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/lineup_art.htm).
And I don't disagree with this.


I would welcome any reasonable study that suggests otherwise...something that would show that the team really would be much better off if Jeter batted second as was earlier suggested despite the prevailing wisdom as discussed by Ruane and others or something that would show how Jeter's adaptability made this possible.

If this is an unreasonable request because people are going to believe what they are going to believe no matter what, then I guess I'm unreasonable.
It's not unreasonable by any means. But you don't make it very appealing to delve into it, either. In other words, why should I - in essence - waste my team researching something that will only be met with smug remarks?

You see that disclaimer you put in there? Any "reasonable" study? Now... I'm sure you consider yourself to be quite rational and fair, but what those kinds of disclaimers scream to me is "wiggle room." Because after all, what exactly would you define as "reasonable"? Something that agrees with your conclusions? Something that lives up to your standards? What would those standards be? I would certainly want that defined before spending time researching something.

This is why I'm saying that it's not worth too much of my time to look up evidence in an argument that has support on both sides. No one is going to change their minds.

Actually...there are probably three sides here:

1. The Damon Should Definitely Be Batting Second faction.
2. The Jeter Should Definitely Be Batting Second faction.
2. The It Doesn't Really Matter That Much faction.

I fall in the third category because - to me - the pros and cons on both sides come out to about the same. But as I said a few posts ago, some people give more weight to certain aspects of the game than others... and it's impossible to say conclusively where that weight should go.

That doesn't mean it's an automatically irrational thought process on behalf of those who feel "X" is more important than "Y", though.

BJG
01-02-06, 12:29 AM
No. That is not that ONLY reason I gave why Jeter would be better batting second. It's the only one you care to harp on, though. And it's not entirely irrelevant why I am arguing this... because I was trying to illustrate that the other side of the argument has some validity. Not that it's correct. Merely that it is not completely irrational, and that there is evidence on both sides... that there are pros and cons to both sides.

I'm harping on it because in its present form, it is neither a pro nor a con - it is an opinion that has yet to be backed up. If you could somehow show that Jeter was more adaptable, then you could notch it on one side of the other. I'm only asking you to quantify the statement so that that can be done.


Evidence that Jeter is more adaptable? Or statistical evidence that Jeter could be better batting second? Because I've offered evidence for the latter, if not the former.

And it is the latter that is the topic of this debate... the former was one statement that seems to be that with which you are taking issue.

So fine.

I will withdraw that statement, because I do not care to spend time researching how Jeter is more versatile than Damon in order to support the side of an argument that I chose only because it seemed SOME people were kind of being rather disrespectful and/or smug regarding the manner in which they approached the debate.

Go figure.

But don't get me wrong. I know there is statistical evidence out there supporting just about any claim. I just don't feel like finding it. I mean, do you feel like going and finding me those home-to-first times because I absolutely refuse to believe you without "proof"? Is this important enough to you? Because it's not to me.

OK, I'm smug. I can live with that. I'll continue to ask that, if you state a broad conclusion, you explain why you believe it to be so. If you don't feel like doing the research, then don't make the claim (or at the very least, don't be shocked when you are held up to scrutiny). To me, it seems a rather simple concept.

Oh, and I've got Jeter at around 4.2 seconds to first and Damon at around 4.0. Lefties get about a .1 second advantage. Is that a big enough difference to mean anything? Honestly, I'm not looking for a treatise. When presented with a situation where Damon grounds the ball on to the right side MORE than Jeter (despite fewer ground balls overall, he still hits the ball on the ground to the right more than Jeter) you would put your money on Jeter over Damon to hit the ball on the ground to the right, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me, because you are suggesting something that runs counter to the evidence, to ask why.

On a larger note, though, as I mention below, there are some standard ways to do lineup analysis. They've been done enough so that we can draw some basic conclusions. The best way to try and see if these conclusions are true or not is to run the same kind of analysis. That keeps us from trying to cherry pick situational stats that may or may not support our argument.


I didn't say "I'd bet he could do it." I said he is more versatile. If you don't want to believe this, you are by no means obligated to. I could try to find the statistics and set it up in a way that would prove this... but as I said, it's not important enough to me, for one... and secondly, you would try to refute it any way possible if I did present it. It's just not worth the trouble.

Let's just pretend that statement never happened.

Again, you said that you would put money on Jeter adapting to the situation and hitting the ball on the right side on the ground. I just want to know if you had a reason for saying this or if it was just something you had a feeliing about. If it's the latter, fine. That answers my question.


It's not unreasonable by any means. But you don't make it very appealing to delve into it, either. In other words, why should I - in essence - waste my team researching something that will only be met with smug remarks?

You see that disclaimer you put in there? Any "reasonable" study? Now... I'm sure you consider yourself to be quite rational and fair, but what those kinds of disclaimers scream to me is "wiggle room." Because after all, what exactly would you define as "reasonable"? Something that agrees with your conclusions? Something that lives up to your standards? What would those standards be? I would certainly want that defined before spending time researching something.

By reasonable, I mean something rooted in the basic rules of statistical analysis. To date, there have been 2 basic approaches to lineup evaluation. The first is to run simulations with various lineups for a team and study the results. The second is to use Markov chains to evaluate lineups. Other approaches have been used as well. Basically, I don't care what the conclusion is as long as the method is sound.


This is why I'm saying that it's not worth too much of my time to look up evidence in an argument that has support on both sides. No one is going to change their minds.

Actually...there are probably three sides here:

1. The Damon Should Definitely Be Batting Second faction.
2. The Jeter Should Definitely Be Batting Second faction.
2. The It Doesn't Really Matter That Much faction.

I fall in the third category because - to me - the pros and cons on both sides come out to about the same. But as I said a few posts ago, some people give more weight to certain aspects of the game than others... and it's impossible to say conclusively where that weight should go.

That doesn't mean it's an automatically irrational thought process on behalf of those who feel "X" is more important than "Y", though.

I refuse to be such a defeatist and I'm really not trying to be smug. The history of statistical analysis in baseball, from at least Branch Rickey forward, is an attempt to try to prove or disprove our standard notions of how the game works. If nothing else, I want to understand what has lead to conclusions that run contrary to said standard thinking such as those occassionaly being presented here. I'm not saying those conclusions are even wrong. They may very well be correct, and thus lead to the evolution of the standard. We'll never know, however, if we are not presented with some kind of evidence to back up those conclusions and if we are not allowed to hold those conclusions up to scrutiny. If that's a waste of your time, there isn't much I can do about it, but I would hope that if you open a door, you'd be willing to walk through it.

grabick_luca
01-02-06, 02:07 AM
haha this is great

keithf1
01-02-06, 03:37 AM
OK, then guys continue debating something pointless. Knock yourselves out. I thought we have already proven that the difference would be so minimal that it is insignificant and we should just accept how things are going to be. If something goes wrong during the season, then I can see why there would be a debate. Damon was signed to be a lead off hitter. I understand the point of a sports forum but this argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere despite already knowing the answer. I respect everyones opinion here but I don't see where it's going. We should be discussing the rest of the line up because that really is up in the air.

I didn't mean to come off so negative but I just think there are a lot more important things going on ;)

Yankees1962
01-02-06, 06:28 AM
OK, then guys continue debating something pointless. Knock yourselves out. I thought we have already proven that the difference would be so minimal that it is insignificant and we should just accept how things are going to be. If something goes wrong during the season, then I can see why there would be a debate. Damon was signed to be a lead off hitter. I understand the point of a sports forum but this argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere despite already knowing the answer. I respect everyones opinion here but I don't see where it's going. We should be discussing the rest of the line up because that really is up in the air.

I didn't mean to come off so negative but I just think there are a lot more important things going on ;)
Obviously, some people like to debate more than the rest of us as well as appear to be right about anything baseball-related in front of those that might admire their so-called baseball acumen.

shutout
01-02-06, 07:17 AM
On a larger note, though, as I mention below, there are some standard ways to do lineup analysis. They've been done enough so that we can draw some basic conclusions. The best way to try and see if these conclusions are true or not is to run the same kind of analysis. That keeps us from trying to cherry pick situational stats that may or may not support our argument.

By reasonable, I mean something rooted in the basic rules of statistical analysis. To date, there have been 2 basic approaches to lineup evaluation. The first is to run simulations with various lineups for a team and study the results. The second is to use Markov chains to evaluate lineups. Other approaches have been used as well. Basically, I don't care what the conclusion is as long as the method is sound.

This is quite interesting: how do these 2 statistical analysis work?

I am in favor for Damon hitting 1st for different reasons (not that there is a big difference between either letting Damon or Jeter hit 1st): he has been signed to be our #1 hitter, he did very well for the BoSox (why change it) and:
- if we look at last years results we see that Damon had only 10 hr's, Jeter had 19: that's almost twice as many: I'd rather have Jeter hit those 19 hr's with a man on base, than without a man on base (more benefit of hr's). Let's just say I'd expect both players to continue what they did last season.
- Damon had an AVG of .316, Jeter of .309 - it's important for the 1st hitter to get on base. The difference isn't gigantic, but there is a difference. Damon will get himself more on base than Jeter will.
The differences are quite small; but there are some differences.

On the other hand Jeter's OBP was higher last season what makes it a valid argument to put Jeter in the #1 spot.
The other reasons, to me, are, however, stronger: I'll say let Damon hit 1st.

Again: the differences are too small to say 'you're right, you're wrong'. They are also too small to debate about 10 pages ;) haha

10?? 65 pages! lol

YankeePride1967
01-02-06, 08:38 AM
anyone have the trasnscript to "Gone With the Wind"?

BJG
01-02-06, 09:28 AM
This is quite interesting: how do these 2 statistical analysis work?

Basically, the simulation method would involve plugging various lineup combinations into a simulator and running lots and lots of seasons to get an average result for each lineup.

The Markov process model is a bit more complicated and probably best explained in the original attempt to use this analysis here: http://www.pankin.com/markov/btn1191.htm though one should note that there are probably some sample size issues when dealing with only 1 team at a time.

Cappy
01-02-06, 11:21 AM
When presented with a situation where Damon grounds the ball on to the right side MORE than Jeter (despite fewer ground balls overall, he still hits the ball on the ground to the right more than Jeter) you would put your money on Jeter over Damon to hit the ball on the ground to the right, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me, because you are suggesting something that runs counter to the evidence, to ask why.
If Damon's a lefty, it would probably be the shortstop covering second base on a hit and run... meaning that Damon would need to put the ball on the LEFT side of the infield.

BJG
01-02-06, 12:48 PM
If Damon's a lefty, it would probably be the shortstop covering second base on a hit and run... meaning that Damon would need to put the ball on the LEFT side of the infield.

To quote you, "I'd put my money on Jeter putting a ball on the ground to the right side ahead of Damon being able to pull a grounder." If Damon has previously hit more ground balls to the right than Jeter, then why would you put your money on Jeter to hit the ball to the right side of the infield over Damon?

As for your new argument, how many times do the Yankees hit and run and how does that relate to how many times they just play it straight with a man on first? How does holding the runner on first and hitting the ball to the right side effect the game when you play it straight? Which situation is likely to have the greatest impact over the course of a season, what happens on X hit and run or what happens on Y playing it straight? How is Damon unable to go the other way on those occassions when the hit and run is called?

This is why a simulation is so useful here, as you will be able to replicate both kinds of situations (and others) over the course of many runs of a season to figure out which way leads to more run scoring.

Cappy
01-02-06, 01:26 PM
To quote you, "I'd put my money on Jeter putting a ball on the ground to the right side ahead of Damon being able to pull a grounder." If Damon has previously hit more ground balls to the right than Jeter, then why would you put your money on Jeter to hit the ball to the right side of the infield over Damon?
Because you took my quote out of context. Leading up to that, I said, "I'd need to see the situational breakdown.... i.e. how many times did he ground to SS when there was a runner on second vs. when no one was on. But I get the feeling that -- if a hit and run is on -- Jeter can go the other way. It's hard to find stats on this... but judging from the way that Damon seems to spray the ball, and the amount of pop-ups he has... "

I was talking about doing it when needed... in a specific situation. And I explicitly said that I would need to see a situational breakdown. Not to mention that I was mistaken in that specific situation, because Damon would actually need to go the other way with the ball as well.

Add to that the fact that when the righty goes the other way on a hit and run, the runner has a better chance of advancing to third than when a lefty goes the other way, and it's just another piece of evidence that isn't completely irrational.


As for your new argument, how many times do the Yankees hit and run and how does that relate to how many times they just play it straight with a man on first? How does holding the runner on first and hitting the ball to the right side effect the game when you play it straight? Which situation is likely to have the greatest impact over the course of a season, what happens on X hit and run or what happens on Y playing it straight? How is Damon unable to go the other way on those occassions when the hit and run is called?

This is why a simulation is so useful here, as you will be able to replicate both kinds of situations (and others) over the course of many runs of a season to figure out which way leads to more run scoring.
I don't disagree with you.

But you still don't seem to grasp my overarching point, do you?

shutout
01-03-06, 05:42 AM
Basically, the simulation method would involve plugging various lineup combinations into a simulator and running lots and lots of seasons to get an average result for each lineup.

The Markov process model is a bit more complicated and probably best explained in the original attempt to use this analysis here: http://www.pankin.com/markov/btn1191.htm though one should note that there are probably some sample size issues when dealing with only 1 team at a time.

thnx mate

HidekiIrabu
01-08-06, 03:18 PM
Did you guys see the video of the press conference where Damon put on his jersey for the first time? He sounded very nervous, or hes just a terrible public speaker. Him trying to be funny though was pretty funny

JeffWeaverFan
01-08-06, 03:39 PM
Did you guys see the video of the press conference where Damon put on his jersey for the first time? He sounded very nervous, or hes just a terrible public speaker. Him trying to be funny though was pretty funny
He had a very bad speech impediment when he was a kid and he is still nervous to make public speeches. But yeah, he definitely was nervous.

Dr. Gonzo
01-12-06, 12:32 PM
I thought that we didn't have to give up a draft pick for him? BA says we do. I would assume they are right, but many people here said otherwise.

irst Round
18. Phillies (from Mets for Type A Billy Wagner)
21. Yankees (from Phillies for Type A Tom Gordon)
22. Nationals (from Athletics for Type B Esteban Loaiza)
25. Angels (from Indians for Type B Paul Byrd)
26. Nationals (from Angels for Type B Hector Carrasco)
28. Red Sox (from Yankees for Type A Johnny Damon)

Supplemental First Round
31. Orioles (for Type A B.J. Ryan)
32. Giants (for Type A Scott Eyre)
33. Diamondbacks (for Type A Tim Worrell)
34. Padres (for Type A Ramon Hernandez)
35. Marlins (for Type A A.J. Burnett)
36. Phillies (for Wagner)
37. Braves (for Type A Kyle Farnsworth)
38. Indians (for Type A Bob Howry)
39. Red Sox (for Damon)
40. Yankees (for Gordon)
41. Cardinals (for Type A Matt Morris)
42. Braves (for Type A Rafael Furcal)
43. Red Sox (for Type A Bill Mueller)
44. *Diamondbacks (for failure to sign 2005 first-rounder Justin Upton)
45. *Mets (for failure to sign 2005 first-rounder Mike Pelfrey)
*Club still negotiating with first-rounder.

Second Round
52. Braves (from Dodgers for Furcal)
54. Padres (from Orioles for Hernandez)
55. Cardinals (from Giants for Morris)
58. Indians (from Cubs for Howry)
59. Orioles (from Blue Jays for Ryan)
73. Braves (from Yankees for Farnsworth)

Supplemental Second Round
76. Indians (for Type C Scott Elarton)
77. Cardinals (for Type C Abraham Nunez)

Third Round
84. Red Sox (from Dodgers for Mueller)
87. Diamondbacks (from Giants for Worrell)
90. Giants (from Cubs for Eyre)
91. Marlins (from Blue Jays for Burnett)

Fourth Round
120. Twins (from Cubs for Type B Jacque Jones)

Boston has alot of picks in the early rounds again.

Mr. Mxylsplk
01-12-06, 01:44 PM
I thought that we didn't have to give up a draft pick for him? BA says we do. I would assume they are right, but many people here said otherwise.

He was offered arbitration by the Sox, so I don't know why we wouldn't have to give up a pick.

Dr. Gonzo
01-12-06, 01:55 PM
He was offered arbitration by the Sox, so I don't know why we wouldn't have to give up a pick.
I thought the same thing, but then saw many posts saying that we didn't have to give anything.

thanks for the claridication,

justinvarnes
01-12-06, 02:53 PM
I thought the idea was that with the Phillies signing Gordon, we essentially "keep" our draft pick.

In other words the Yankees didn't lose their only first round pick b/c of Damon. they did however, lose what would have been 2 picks.

errrr, I think....

gdn
01-12-06, 03:07 PM
I thought the idea was that with the Phillies signing Gordon, we essentially "keep" our draft pick.

In other words the Yankees didn't lose their only first round pick b/c of Damon. they did however, lose what would have been 2 picks.

errrr, I think....What happened is this:

We had the 28th pick.
We lost that when we signed Farnsworth. So now, Atlanta picks 28th.
We got Philly's 21st pick when they signed Gordon.
So, we pick 21 and Atlanta picks 28.
Then we signed Damon.
So Boston gets the 28th and Atlanta takes our second rounder.
For Gordon we also got a supplemental pick that we can't lose.
So we pick 21st and a supplemental pick.
Boston also gets a supplemental, as does Atlanta.

Dave Visbeck
01-18-06, 08:04 AM
I miss Johnny. Oh Johnny, oh Johnny, ohhhhh. :(

Dave Visbeck
01-18-06, 08:21 AM
Did I remember right when I think I heard he got 52 million for the four years? I can honestly say I don't know all the money facts. When I read he was going to the Yankees ... I just tried to block it out of my mind when it happened.

The money information is probably in this post ... but I just didn't want to read about it. The longer the fact that he is gone from the Sox sinks in to me ... then I'll be able to read this whole thing.

I'm glad he took the money that he got. It was a nice raise from his old contract ,,, and a raise that he earned in Boston. I'm dissapointed and mad at the Sox management that they didn't try harder to keep the guy ... because he was one of my favorites and a guy loved in Boston. :(

Just wondering if anyone here thinks that if Boston had offered Johnny 50 million for five years ... 10 million a year instead of the 13 million here that I think I heard that he will get ... just wondering if anyone thinks Johnny would of stayed in Boston then? 2 million less dollars and one year off of his baseball life of earning potential. :looking:

jnewmark
01-18-06, 08:49 AM
Not that I want to help the Red Sox any, but, if they were willing to give up one of their best pitching prospects, thet might be able to get Coco Crisp from Cleveland. Similiar numbers to Johnny and younger.

drjeckyl
01-18-06, 09:03 AM
Did I remember right when I think I heard he got 52 million for the four years? I can honestly say I don't know all the money facts. When I read he was going to the Yankees ... I just tried to block it out of my mind when it happened.

The money information is probably in this post ... but I just didn't want to read about it. The longer the fact that he is gone from the Sox sinks in to me ... then I'll be able to read this whole thing.

I'm glad he took the money that he got. It was a nice raise from his old contract ,,, and a raise that he earned in Boston. I'm dissapointed and mad at the Sox management that they didn't try harder to keep the guy ... because he was one of my favorites and a guy loved in Boston. :(

Just wondering if anyone here thinks that if Boston had offered Johnny 50 million for five years ... 10 million a year instead of the 13 million here that I think I heard that he will get ... just wondering if anyone thinks Johnny would of stayed in Boston then? 2 million less dollars and one year off of his baseball life of earning potential. :looking:


The sox management blew this one.... As I recall, from the interviews and sound bites I heard, it seemed to me he wanted to stay in Boston, and might have if the dollars were closer. But, money aside, he sounded a little resentful at sox management because they didn't show him some appreciation and desire. Instead, they took a cold business-like approach to the negotiations and didn't demonstrate (to him at least) an open desire to want to resign him, even after he told them he would play elsewhere if they didn't get serious. He took this tact poorly and said the Yankees were more aggressive in their negotiations.

I got the impression it never occurred to the sox management that he might leave. They seemed rather surprised to hear that he agreed to a contract offer from the Yanks and they had to learn it from the media. In retrospect, I think the sox management didn't realize how much appreciation Damon needed to feel from them early in the negotiation process. I little love could have gone a long way in this case.

Money had a lot to do with it, but I think if the total dollars were closer and the sox FO show him some love, he would have stayed. That's my impression anyway.

ICEBERG18
01-18-06, 09:42 AM
Most of the nearly 30 elite athletes working out Tuesday at the Walt Disney World of Sports were collegians on a mission to be selected in the first round of the upcoming NFL Draft.
But among them was a 32-year-old veteran who already had been to the pinnacle of his sport and was now on a much different quest.

''I want to show the Red Sox that they made a mistake and the rest of baseball that I'm not old -- I'm not washed up,'' said Johnny Damon, who in December signed a four-year, $52 million contract with the New York Yankees after Boston failed to make him a final offer.

'It kind of broke my heart, because my heart and soul was there [in Boston],'' Damon said. ``And I tried to the last minute, but they just thought I was bluffing. I told them I had a strong offer.

"You know you can walk away from a little bit of money: a million, million and a half, maybe even two, because my heart was with Boston. But $3 million dollars [per year]. My brother's family is very secure now.''

We kept telling them, make us your final offer. They just didn't do it. I think they felt like I was washed up because I was playing hurt all year last season and they knew it.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/13650988.htm

The Dynasty
01-18-06, 10:20 AM
Most of the nearly 30 elite athletes working out Tuesday at the Walt Disney World of Sports were collegians on a mission to be selected in the first round of the upcoming NFL Draft.
But among them was a 32-year-old veteran who already had been to the pinnacle of his sport and was now on a much different quest.

''I want to show the Red Sox that they made a mistake and the rest of baseball that I'm not old -- I'm not washed up,'' said Johnny Damon, who in December signed a four-year, $52 million contract with the New York Yankees after Boston failed to make him a final offer.

'It kind of broke my heart, because my heart and soul was there [in Boston],'' Damon said. ``And I tried to the last minute, but they just thought I was bluffing. I told them I had a strong offer.

"You know you can walk away from a little bit of money: a million, million and a half, maybe even two, because my heart was with Boston. But $3 million dollars [per year]. My brother's family is very secure now.''

We kept telling them, make us your final offer. They just didn't do it. I think they felt like I was washed up because I was playing hurt all year last season and they knew it.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/13650988.htm

It's good to see that JD is already working his ass off. I have faith that his body will not break down like Bernie's.

Cold Shad
01-18-06, 08:16 PM
The sox management blew this one.... As I recall, from the interviews and sound bites I heard, it seemed to me he wanted to stay in Boston, and might have if the dollars were closer. But, money aside, he sounded a little resentful at sox management because they didn't show him some appreciation and desire. Instead, they took a cold business-like approach to the negotiations and didn't demonstrate (to him at least) an open desire to want to resign him, even after he told them he would play elsewhere if they didn't get serious. He took this tact poorly and said the Yankees were more aggressive in their negotiations.

I got the impression it never occurred to the sox management that he might leave. They seemed rather surprised to hear that he agreed to a contract offer from the Yanks and they had to learn it from the media. In retrospect, I think the sox management didn't realize how much appreciation Damon needed to feel from them early in the negotiation process. I little love could have gone a long way in this case.

Money had a lot to do with it, but I think if the total dollars were closer and the sox FO show him some love, he would have stayed. That's my impression anyway.
It wasn't the romance it was the finance.

Dynasties R Forever
01-18-06, 09:13 PM
Most of the nearly 30 elite athletes working out Tuesday at the Walt Disney World of Sports were collegians on a mission to be selected in the first round of the upcoming NFL Draft.
But among them was a 32-year-old veteran who already had been to the pinnacle of his sport and was now on a much different quest.

''I want to show the Red Sox that they made a mistake and the rest of baseball that I'm not old -- I'm not washed up,'' said Johnny Damon, who in December signed a four-year, $52 million contract with the New York Yankees after Boston failed to make him a final offer.

'It kind of broke my heart, because my heart and soul was there [in Boston],'' Damon said. ``And I tried to the last minute, but they just thought I was bluffing. I told them I had a strong offer.

"You know you can walk away from a little bit of money: a million, million and a half, maybe even two, because my heart was with Boston. But $3 million dollars [per year]. My brother's family is very secure now.''

We kept telling them, make us your final offer. They just didn't do it. I think they felt like I was washed up because I was playing hurt all year last season and they knew it.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/13650988.htm

Yeah baby!!! Man on a mission. Show'em. Bring it Johnny!!!

JeffWeaverFan
01-18-06, 09:27 PM
It's good to see that JD is already working his ass off. I have faith that his body will not break down like Bernie's.
Unlike Bernie, Damon has not had as many injuries to this point as Bernie did. But, also unlike Bernie, Damon is and never was near the ballplayer that Bernie once was. We'll see, but I'm very worried about Damon, and the whole Yankee team, in 2008 and 2009.

StaceyRosie
01-18-06, 09:29 PM
We'll see, but I'm very worried about Damon, and the whole Yankee team, in 2008 and 2009.

well thank God it's only 2006!

Jace
01-18-06, 10:14 PM
Unlike Bernie, Damon has not had as many injuries to this point as Bernie did. But, also unlike Bernie, Damon is and never was near the ballplayer that Bernie once was. We'll see, but I'm very worried about Damon, and the whole Yankee team, in 2008 and 2009.

Its way too early to worry about that, with the ability of this team to absorb big contracts (not that they want to, but if they need to), the quality of the lower levels of the minor league system, the restraint Cashman has shown in waiting for a good deal instead of pulling the first trigger he finds (and sending away the quality in the lower minors), and just the general unpredictability of the future.

mjdlight
01-18-06, 10:29 PM
Unlike Bernie, Damon has not had as many injuries to this point as Bernie did. But, also unlike Bernie, Damon is and never was near the ballplayer that Bernie once was. We'll see, but I'm very worried about Damon, and the whole Yankee team, in 2008 and 2009.

If Damon is the key ingredient that gets us a WS win in 2006, I don't care about 2008 and 2009. Yes, I'd love the Yankees to be competitive in those years, but 5 WS wins in 10 years sure does go a long way... :)

38Special
01-18-06, 10:34 PM
Unlike Bernie, Damon has not had as many injuries to this point as Bernie did. But, also unlike Bernie, Damon is and never was near the ballplayer that Bernie once was. We'll see, but I'm very worried about Damon, and the whole Yankee team, in 2008 and 2009.

We're doomed!

MiamiKat
01-19-06, 01:18 AM
I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Damon is a Yankee.

I mean, I know he is...but it's still very strange.

Dave Visbeck
01-19-06, 03:12 AM
If Damon is the key ingredient that gets us a WS win in 2006, I don't care about 2008 and 2009. Yes, I'd love the Yankees to be competitive in those years, but 5 WS wins in 10 years sure does go a long way... :)


The winning ways of the Yankees... 90 years in time.
10 year periods thru 2005... Yanks got nothing really to complain about. :NY:

1916-1925 Yankee Championships (1) :cheer: Red Sox Championships (2) :2thumbs: (http://forums.nyyfans.com/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=5#)
1926-1935 Yankee Championships (3) :clap: Red Sox Championships (0) :upset:
1936-1945 Yankee Championships (6) :-padlock- Red Sox Championships (0) :-surrende
1946-1955 Yankee Championships (6):-padlock- Red Sox Championships (0) :-hide-:
1956-1965 Yankee Championships (4) :gulp: Red Sox Championships (0) :barf:
1966-1975 Yankee Championships (0) :scared: Red Sox Championships (0) :-shrug-:
1976-1985 Yankee Championships (2) :-whistle- Red Sox Championships (0) :banned:
1986-1995 Yankee Championships (0) :eek: Red Sox Championships (0) :-poke-:
1996-2005 Yankee Championships (4) :-padlock- Red Sox Championships (1):clapping:



90 Years Yankee Championships (26) :-padlock- Red Sox Championships (3) :D

AlongCameAPrincess
01-19-06, 04:08 AM
I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Damon is a Yankee.

I mean, I know he is...but it's still very strange.

It's like when you graduate high school... Or when you fly to another state/country and it's all very surreal. Then it's normal, but then it feels strange again for some reason.

Dave Visbeck
01-19-06, 05:21 AM
It's like when you graduate high school... Or when you fly to another state/country and it's all very surreal. Then it's normal, but then it feels strange again for some reason.

At least for us that are Red Sox fans, Johnny won't look like the same guy we had with his hair and beard and the Damon deciples he had from the good old days gone by. http://xs12.xs.to/pics/05035/icon_old.gif

Dave Visbeck
01-19-06, 05:35 AM
And at least we still have him in the mixed combo sub Yankee/Red Sox family I have. :eek: :o The only change is that the biggest Damon fan family member we have is still faithful to her baseball hero ... in her baseball way ... and will now stick with him come hell or high water. (My thoughts) ;)

She'll be missing the old "Damon look" from Boston I do believe though. I don't think she's seen the "clean cut" look he has now ... but I'm not exactly too sure about that fact in all honesty. Right now she is very busy with Drama in school, getting good grades and a nice relationship with new friend/friends. She has a play this Friday she's worried a little over... but knowing her... she will do just fine. :)

I want Johnny to have a good year to prove some things in New York. I just don't want those good things to come at the expense of the Red Sox! :scared:
I want him to be "No Hit Johnny" against my Sox. :P

Davios
01-19-06, 07:47 AM
While I agree Damon runs a high risk of a breakdown similar to that of Bernie, it has also become very well known that Damon is deeply involved in a workout regimen every season to try and maximize his speed, strength, and conditioning. Something Bernie has never actually done in a serious fashion, and it has been widely publicized.

nyctalopia
01-19-06, 08:05 AM
While I agree Damon runs a high risk of a breakdown similar to that of Bernie, it has also become very well known that Damon is deeply involved in a workout regimen every season to try and maximize his speed, strength, and conditioning. Something Bernie has never actually done in a serious fashion, and it has been widely publicized.
That's true. Bernie's work ethic has never been well publicized, leading one to believe he doesn't exactly have a great one. Maybe someone can prove me wrong on this.

JeffWeaverFan
01-19-06, 09:52 AM
Its way too early to worry about that, with the ability of this team to absorb big contracts (not that they want to, but if they need to), the quality of the lower levels of the minor league system, the restraint Cashman has shown in waiting for a good deal instead of pulling the first trigger he finds (and sending away the quality in the lower minors), and just the general unpredictability of the future.
The Yankees have never been able to absorbed contracts like these. In 2009 we will have 4 players making a combined $60 million (at least). Damon will be 35, Jeter will be 35, Matsui will be 35, and A-Rod will be 34. The year before that everyone will obviously be a year younger but add Giambi at age 38 to the equation. The point is, I worry about this team in a few years which is why I am so against trading away any prospects because I believe we will need those guys big time in a few years. It is also the reason why I didn't want to give Matsui the 4th year and was against Damon getting a 4 year deal.

Jace
01-19-06, 11:19 AM
The Yankees have never been able to absorbed contracts like these. In 2009 we will have 4 players making a combined $60 million (at least). Damon will be 35, Jeter will be 35, Matsui will be 35, and A-Rod will be 34. The year before that everyone will obviously be a year younger but add Giambi at age 38 to the equation. The point is, I worry about this team in a few years which is why I am so against trading away any prospects because I believe we will need those guys big time in a few years. It is also the reason why I didn't want to give Matsui the 4th year and was against Damon getting a 4 year deal.

I don't know why you are worried about A-rod at 34, I doubt his skills are at much risk. I think that between Jeter, Matsui, and Damon of 2009, one will have declined a ton, one will have declined a good amount but still remain around or slightly below league average (I realize Matsui isn't really above league average for a left fielder right now, but he's probably the least likely to decline severely of the 3), and one will produce pretty similarly to right now.

This is hardly enough to cripple any team, and two of these players are making 12 mil. I guarantee they won't cripple the Yanks. I don't see the market downturning, and by 2009 I doubt 12 mil will even look that bad. Giambi will be 37 I think in 2008, and the team has already shown it will bench him if he doesn't perform (thus absorbing his contract), which will be even easier to do if it is the last year of his contract. Not that hard to upgrade at 1B if Giambi isn't producing. In any case, the lower levels of the minor leagues will have matured by this time and so much free agent signing/trading will have occured you won't recognize the team, so its almost silly to argue about this.

BJG
01-19-06, 11:31 AM
I don't know why you are worried about A-rod at 34, I doubt his skills are at much risk. I think that between Jeter, Matsui, and Damon of 2009, one will have declined a ton, one will have declined a good amount but still remain around or slightly below league average (I realize Matsui isn't really above league average for a left fielder right now, but he's probably the least likely to decline severely of the 3), and one will produce pretty similarly to right now.

How do you figure this? Damon is the best defender of the bunch and is pretty much average at this point. Given normal defensive declines, it looks like Damon shifts to LF, Matsui to DH, and I have no idea where Jeter goes at 35. The question then becomes, are they hitting enough to carry the less defensive positions?

Jace
01-19-06, 11:34 AM
How do you figure this? Damon is the best defender of the bunch and is pretty much average at this point. Given normal defensive declines, it looks like Damon shifts to LF, Matsui to DH, and I have no idea where Jeter goes at 35. The question then becomes, are they hitting enough to carry the less defensive positions?

In the last year of their contracts, I think someone has the balls to bench one of them (not Jeter, unless it is ridiculously obvious he can't play short) for a good young player. And everyone doesnt decline normally, its just the average. I figured one would decline more and probably one less out of the three, and that could easily apply to defense as well.

BJG
01-19-06, 11:53 AM
In the last year of their contracts, I think someone has the balls to bench one of them (not Jeter, unless it is ridiculously obvious he can't play short) for a good young player. And everyone doesnt decline normally, its just the average. I figured one would decline more and probably one less out of the three, and that could easily apply to defense as well.

There's a reason that there are no defensive good CFs and SSs in their mid-thirties, and that applies to the guys who were once good too. If you were trying to make this argument about a 1B, I'd be much more comfortable. However, in Jeter especially, you have a guy who does not have a high peak defensively, can't slide over to 3rd, will be too old to move to CF or 2B, and has very little margin for offensive decline if he wants to be even an average player at any other position he can play. Same thing with Damon. He hits like a LF now. To expect him to in 4 years is asking a lot.

Jace
01-19-06, 12:03 PM
There's a reason that there are no defensive good CFs and SSs in their mid-thirties, and that applies to the guys who were once good too. If you were trying to make this argument about a 1B, I'd be much more comfortable. However, in Jeter especially, you have a guy who does not have a high peak defensively, can't slide over to 3rd, will be too old to move to CF or 2B, and has very little margin for offensive decline if he wants to be even an average player at any other position he can play. Same thing with Damon. He hits like a LF now. To expect him to in 4 years is asking a lot.

So Damon is benched for a good young CF and is a good 4th OF who plays every 3rd game or so, Matsui plays an average LF, and Jeter splits time between DH and a somewhat below average short (factoring in both defense and offense). Not going to kill a team, and just one very plausible scenario.

Davios
01-19-06, 12:15 PM
That's true. Bernie's work ethic has never been well publicized, leading one to believe he doesn't exactly have a great one. Maybe someone can prove me wrong on this.


It has actually become quite well known over the years that Bernie is a guy who simply doesn't find a serious training program appealing. That is not to say Bernie goes home at the end of a season and lays down for a few months, I'm sure he has his own workout plan it simply isn't anywhere close to that of players like Damon and Arod who literally train all offseason with specialists.

BJG
01-19-06, 12:23 PM
So Damon is benched for a good young CF, Matsui plays an average LF, and Jeter splits time between DH and a somewhat below average short (factoring in both defense and offense). Not going to kill a team, and just one very plausible scenario.

How does a below average player making $19M a year not hurt the team? Giambi hurt the team when he couldn't play. Sure, the Yankees were willing to not play him, but it's not like they were able to replace him in the interim with another good player. They had to replace him with replacement types.

Furthermore, putting those players in those spots might be plausible, I just don't think your estimation of performance is. The difference between Matsui being overall average right now in LF is only about 10-15 runs (he's losing a lot of his offensive value to his defense). It is a very big leap to assume that 4 years from now, he won't have lost more than those 10-15 runs. Over that long, it doesn't take much for that to happen.

freebubba
01-19-06, 01:47 PM
Re: Pavano given clean bill of health....bears watching for a trade
<HR style="COLOR: #999999" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Yankeeah
Why did it iratate you to no end? Jeter has had a better OBP than Johnny 9 of the last 10 years. The job of the leadoff hitter is to get on base (which Jeter does better) and to put yourself in the best position to score. Damon is a batter base stealer, but few players run the bases like Jeter.

Don't present your opinion, give two general stats, and then say that no other opinion matters.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Sorry, did not mean to summarily dismiss other's opinions. The fact that Jeter was hitting leadoff did not bother me as much as why he had to bat leadoff.

Question: Have we won a WS with Jeter hitting leadoff? Answer: NO. Was he the most capable leadoff hitter the Yankees had? Certainly. Was Derek Jeter the best # 2 hitter in the game? Yes. Have we been trying to fill the leadoff role with other players? Yes (Lofton and Womack were both signed with that in mind). In just did not work out. Jeter has been hitting leadoff out of necessity, not because that fact in and of itself gives the Yankees a better lineup. With a man who has proven to be as equally effective in the leadoff spot, I think the best lineup is Jeter batting second. I just like him there better, sorry, can't help it.

Oh, and for JDPNYY-

Derek Damon is a forward and one of the leading scorers for the U of Maine Blackbears hockey team.

Jace
01-19-06, 02:27 PM
How does a below average player making $19M a year not hurt the team? Giambi hurt the team when he couldn't play. Sure, the Yankees were willing to not play him, but it's not like they were able to replace him in the interim with another good player. They had to replace him with replacement types.

Furthermore, putting those players in those spots might be plausible, I just don't think your estimation of performance is. The difference between Matsui being overall average right now in LF is only about 10-15 runs (he's losing a lot of his offensive value to his defense). It is a very big leap to assume that 4 years from now, he won't have lost more than those 10-15 runs. Over that long, it doesn't take much for that to happen.

A below average player hurts the Yankees but only by being below average, as at this point his salary has nothing to do with it. That cost was sunk 6 years ago. If he is better then the next option, offense and defense included, even if the next option costs less, it doesnt matter, you stick with him. If not, then you play him at DH where I think his offense would be league average. If there are better options at both, then you bench him.

On second thought, that might be a tangent. I don't know really what your point is.

Giambi being replaced by crappy replacement level players occurred because it was an improvisation, a thing that the organization did not have time to plan for. It also occurred because the upper levels of our minor leagues don't have major-league ready talent, and thus we couldn't either play that talent or trade it for value. You are talking about a situation 3-4 years into the future, when both the talent in the low levels of the minors and the ability to make good backup plans will come into play. I believe that there will be significantly above replacement level options in 3 years to bench Damon/Giambi/Matsui for if they decline steeply. That might be true for Jeter as well, but no one will bench Derek Jeter, which could be a problem.

I realize it wouldn't take too much decline from Matsui to be league average or below. Saying Matsui will play an average left was more saying either Matsui or Damon will play an average left. Matsui had a better year in 2004 and could hit like that again and decline slowly, its not like he is too old to make it really unlikely. I know that Damon's offense last year would only be league average for a left fielder without even counting in 3 years of decline, but he also had a very good 2004 (I'm not going to worry about steroids, whats the point) and it is possible that he'll keep some power in Yankee Stadium and thus keep his offensive value as his speed decreases and he can only play left and can't beat out balls for singles anymore. That might not be that likely, but I think that there is a good chance either he or Matsui can play a league average left field in 2009.

BJG
01-19-06, 03:07 PM
A below average player hurts the Yankees but only by being below average, as at this point his salary has nothing to do with it. That cost was sunk 6 years ago. If he is better then the next option, offense and defense included, even if the next option costs less, it doesnt matter, you stick with him. If not, then you play him at DH where I think his offense would be league average. If there are better options at both, then you bench him.

But if you put Matsui at DH, then where do you play Jeter, who you were going to put at DH? This is the problem. It's not that you have one of these deals coming to a head, it's that you have multiple situations and only so many positions on the field.


Giambi being replaced by crappy replacement level players occurred because it was an improvisation, a thing that the organization did not have time to plan for. It also occurred because the upper levels of our minor leagues don't have major-league ready talent, and thus we couldn't either play that talent or trade it for value. You are talking about a situation 3-4 years into the future, when both the talent in the low levels of the minors and the ability to make good backup plans will come into play. I believe that there will be significantly above replacement level options in 3 years to bench Damon/Giambi/Matsui for if they decline steeply. That might be true for Jeter as well, but no one will bench Derek Jeter, which could be a problem.

They had plenty of time to plan for Giambi's health both following his knee surgery and following everyting that happened in 2004. Entire offseasons. They just didn't have the desire to go out and spend on another top flight 1B/DH when the health/production of the one they had was in question. In addition, the Yankees had a replacement for Giambi, but they traded him, so the notion that the minor leagues are the answer if and when any of these guys pan out at the exact positions of need also seems to be pushing it.


I realize it wouldn't take too much decline from Matsui to be league average or below. Saying Matsui will play an average left was more saying either Matsui or Damon will play an average left. Matsui had a better year in 2004 and could hit like that again and decline slowly, its not like he is too old to make it really unlikely. I know that Damon's offense last year would only be league average for a left fielder without even counting in 3 years of decline, but he also had a very good 2004 (I'm not going to worry about steroids, whats the point) and it is possible that he'll keep some power in Yankee Stadium and thus keep his offensive value as his speed decreases and he can only play left and can't beat out balls for singles anymore. That might not be that likely, but I think that there is a good chance either he or Matsui can play a league average left field in 2009.

I'm not saying it's not possible, it's just highly unlikely. Hoping that you've got the exception to the rule is not a good way to make long term decisions. What you are likly left with are multiple below average players and rookie(s) who you hope can dominate in their first season so as to fill the void. That's a lot to ask for.

surge511
01-19-06, 03:26 PM
35 or 36 years old is not done with a baseball career in this day and age. I am not expecting a steep decline in performance from Damon or Matsui in their contracts. They should play pretty much at the level they are performing right now - we just shouldn't give them another longterm contract after this one is done. People are acting like we will have a bunch of washed up idiots on the team in 4 years, and barring major injury, that will probably not be the case.

Dave Visbeck
01-19-06, 03:44 PM
Damon really goes after the ball. Just doesn't have a great arm so I don't know about the little faster players taking an extra base. Seems like that is what the problem with Bernie was to many here.

I just wish this could be like 75' again for the Red Sox. I wish there was another Fred Lynn around the corner. Great on defense ... went after the ball and had a really nice arm. He wouldn't back off a ball headed for the fence. It was hard for players to take the extra bases. He was great in Boston. :D

If only... if only. :(

BJG
01-19-06, 03:53 PM
35 or 36 years old is not done with a baseball career in this day and age. I am not expecting a steep decline in performance from Damon or Matsui in their contracts. They should play pretty much at the level they are performing right now - we just shouldn't give them another longterm contract after this one is done. People are acting like we will have a bunch of washed up idiots on the team in 4 years, and barring major injury, that will probably not be the case.

It's baseball, though. Again, there's a reason there aren't any good defensive CFs in their mid-thirties. To expect it not to happen to your guy is wishful thinking. The line between productive and not productive is very small. The decline doesn't have to be steep.

-tz
01-19-06, 09:49 PM
The Post today has a picture to go along with this story (that is, the story that Damon is working out in Florida, not the one about his signing with the Yanks, now that there is only one merged thread):

http://www.nypost.com/photos/yankslead01192006.jpg


Damon, who was working out at Disney's sports complex in the Orlando area, told the Miami Herald, "I want to show the Red Sox that they made a mistake and the rest of baseball that I'm not old — I'm not washed up." http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/61812.htm

BronxByTheBay
01-19-06, 09:54 PM
What I don't understand about the quote is who was alleging that Damon was either old or washed up?

Is this just Johnny being Johnny? :eek:

-tz
01-19-06, 10:34 PM
What I don't understand about the quote is who was alleging that Damon was either old or washed up?

Is this just Johnny being Johnny? :eek:It was Edward Lear, the noted bard ... ;)


There was an old man with a beard
Who said, "It is just as I feared
Two owls and a hen,
Four larks and a wren,
Have all built their nests in my beard.":scared: :D

mjdlight
01-20-06, 12:09 AM
The winning ways of the Yankees... 90 years in time.
10 year periods thru 2005... Yanks got nothing really to complain about. :NY:

1916-1925 Yankee Championships (1) :cheer: Red Sox Championships (2) :2thumbs: (http://forums.nyyfans.com/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=5#)
1926-1935 Yankee Championships (3) :clap: Red Sox Championships (0) :upset:
1936-1945 Yankee Championships (6) :-padlock- Red Sox Championships (0) :-surrende
1946-1955 Yankee Championships (6):-padlock- Red Sox Championships (0) :-hide-:
1956-1965 Yankee Championships (4) :gulp: Red Sox Championships (0) :barf:
1966-1975 Yankee Championships (0) :scared: Red Sox Championships (0) :-shrug-:
1976-1985 Yankee Championships (2) :-whistle- Red Sox Championships (0) :banned:
1986-1995 Yankee Championships (0) :eek: Red Sox Championships (0) :-poke-:
1996-2005 Yankee Championships (4) :-padlock- Red Sox Championships (1):clapping:



90 Years Yankee Championships (26) :-padlock- Red Sox Championships (3) :D

Hey Dave, I'm still relatively new to this board, but no one, even a newbie, can miss your posts!

My two favorite teams in sport are the Yankees and the NY Rangers. It's a perfect balance for me between a team with a history of domination and a hard luck, Red Sox-like team that nevertheless has a large and very loyal fanbase that roots for the team through thick and (mostly) thin.
Anyway, carry on. :)

Nuke LaLoosh
01-20-06, 12:23 AM
Anyone care that Theo is back in Beantown?

JDPNYY
01-20-06, 12:26 AM
Anyone care that Theo is back in Beantown?

Does Theo report to the new Co-GMs or do the new Co-GMs report to Theo?

-tz
01-20-06, 12:28 AM
Anyone care that Theo is back in Beantown?The people who post in the Red Sox thread ... and the people who've posted in the new thread about it, here:

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=92536 ;)
(http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=92536)

JDPNYY
01-20-06, 12:30 AM
The people who post in the Red Sox thread ... and the people who've posted in the new thread about it, here:

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=92536 ;)
(http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=92536)

It's scary there -tz. Admitted sarcasm and stupidity abound.

Nuke LaLoosh
01-20-06, 12:34 AM
The people who post in the Red Sox thread ... and the people who've posted in the new thread about it, here:

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=92536 ;)
(http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=92536)

Thanks, still new to the board, will know where to find threads like this next time.

JeffWeaverFan
01-20-06, 01:19 PM
I don't know why you are worried about A-rod at 34, I doubt his skills are at much risk. I think that between Jeter, Matsui, and Damon of 2009, one will have declined a ton, one will have declined a good amount but still remain around or slightly below league average (I realize Matsui isn't really above league average for a left fielder right now, but he's probably the least likely to decline severely of the 3), and one will produce pretty similarly to right now.
I'm not exactly worried about A-Rod at 34, but I doubt he will be as good of a player as he is now. He'll still be good, but he'll be in decline and his defense will also get worse. OK, if that's what you believe, then we're in some trouble. Especially when you consider how unbelievably horrible the defense will be. The Yankees have limits to their payroll and if your having guys that are making as much money as Jeter, Damon, and Matsui are but are not producing and playing horrible defense, then your in trouble. And, it's not like we can just sign a FA and make the guy that declines the most a bench player. The Yankees knew that CF was a huge problem in Bernie's last contract year and were thinking about signing Beltran, but decided that they couldn't afford it. So, we went into the season with horrible production and defense from CF. Now, imagine if that is happening for 3 positions, as it very well could in 2009.



This is hardly enough to cripple any team, and two of these players are making 12 mil. I guarantee they won't cripple the Yanks. I don't see the market downturning, and by 2009 I doubt 12 mil will even look that bad. Giambi will be 37 I think in 2008, and the team has already shown it will bench him if he doesn't perform (thus absorbing his contract), which will be even easier to do if it is the last year of his contract. Not that hard to upgrade at 1B if Giambi isn't producing. In any case, the lower levels of the minor leagues will have matured by this time and so much free agent signing/trading will have occured you won't recognize the team, so its almost silly to argue about this.
Matsui and Damon are making $13 million, Jeter makes $18.9 million, and A-Rod makes something like $17 million from us (although I am least worried about A-Rod). If we don't have anyone in the farm to replace those guys and we play them instead of making them bench players (which we will as we saw with Bernie this year), you better believe that's enough to cripple the Yanks. Yes, so we showed that we would bench Giambi if he wasn't performing. The problem is that who are we replacing that guy with? We replaced Giambi with Tino, who was a bad offensive player except for 1 week.

The hope is that the lower guys in the minors have developed to the point where they can play and produce. And if that is the case, we will be fine. But, it is also the reason, as I said in my first post, why I am against trading prospects away and care so much about the farm system.

Cold Shad
01-20-06, 02:40 PM
Why was it more important to take Damon away from the Red Sox, than it was to take B.J. Ryan away from the BlueJays. Ryan and his agent both said he would come to NY.

JeffWeaverFan
01-20-06, 03:21 PM
Why was it more important to take Damon away from the Red Sox, than it was to take B.J. Ryan away from the BlueJays. Ryan and his agent both said he would come to NY.
I don't even get what your saying but it was made clear that BJ Ryan did not want to be a setup man for the Yankees.

Boogiedown Bomber
01-20-06, 06:24 PM
I don't even get what your saying but it was made clear that BJ Ryan did not want to be a setup man for the Yankees.

And, BJ Ryan knew he could get a sh*tload of loonies from the Blue Jays.

Cold Shad
01-20-06, 06:47 PM
This move seemed to take the Yankees by Surprise. I dont know if they made their last best offer.

Dave Visbeck
01-20-06, 06:48 PM
Why was it more important to take Damon away from the Red Sox, than it was to take B.J. Ryan away from the BlueJays. Ryan and his agent both said he would come to NY.


Because we are better than the Blue Jays of course! :P George was just being a mean mean owner to do something like he did. :( :( He is just being mean to rub us that way. :enraged:

Dave Visbeck
01-20-06, 06:49 PM
Typical George stuff. :D ;)

Dave Visbeck
01-20-06, 06:52 PM
Hey Dave, I'm still relatively new to this board, but no one, even a newbie, can miss your posts!

My two favorite teams in sport are the Yankees and the NY Rangers. It's a perfect balance for me between a team with a history of domination and a hard luck, Red Sox-like team that nevertheless has a large and very loyal fanbase that roots for the team through thick and (mostly) thin.
Anyway, carry on. :)

Welcome to you! I don't ever remember seeing you put anything in the Introductions section of NYYFans? Did I miss it? http://xs12.xs.to/pics/05035/icon_old.gif

Dave Visbeck
01-20-06, 07:02 PM
Hey Dave, I'm still relatively new to this board, but no one, even a newbie, can miss your posts!
Anyway, carry on. :)

http://xs12.xs.to/pics/05035/icon_old.gif


I do make a Red Sox pest of myself here with colors and such. I'm kind of like a mosquito at a humid evening New York garden party that keeps on coming back to bother many.


http://www.free-smileys.org/emo/bounce017.gif

Dave Visbeck
01-20-06, 07:03 PM
Now back to heeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrssssssss Johnny! :(

Mr. Mxylsplk
01-20-06, 07:37 PM
This move seemed to take the Yankees by Surprise. I dont know if they made their last best offer.
Where do you get that it surprised the yanks. It seemed like everyone knew he wanted to close, and obviously he couldn't close here. Didn't seem surprising at all.

Dynasties R Forever
01-20-06, 10:35 PM
But if you put Matsui at DH, then where do you play Jeter, who you were going to put at DH? This is the problem. It's not that you have one of these deals coming to a head, it's that you have multiple situations and only so many positions on the field.



They had plenty of time to plan for Giambi's health both following his knee surgery and following everyting that happened in 2004. Entire offseasons. They just didn't have the desire to go out and spend on another top flight 1B/DH when the health/production of the one they had was in question. In addition, the Yankees had a replacement for Giambi, but they traded him, so the notion that the minor leagues are the answer if and when any of these guys pan out at the exact positions of need also seems to be pushing it.



I'm not saying it's not possible, it's just highly unlikely. Hoping that you've got the exception to the rule is not a good way to make long term decisions. What you are likly left with are multiple below average players and rookie(s) who you hope can dominate in their first season so as to fill the void. That's a lot to ask for.

But, get this. We're the Yankee$ baby. Where two wrong$$ do make a ri$$t. Welcome to hell.... Really dude, I'm not worried at all about any of that. :o

Dave Visbeck
01-22-06, 12:13 PM
But, get this. We're the Yankee$ baby. Where two wrong$$ do make a ri$$t. Welcome to hell.... Really dude, I'm not worried at all about any of that. :o



http://xs12.xs.to/pics/05035/icon_old.gif

You've got to change your evil way$, baby
Before I start lovin' you.
You've got to change, baby
And every word that I say is true

You've got me runnin, and hidin, all over town,
You've got me sneakin, and peekin',
And runnin' around, this can't go on...
Lord know$ you've got to change, baby...baby
You've got to change your evil way$, baby :NY: :scared:


http://forums.filefront.com/images/smilies/banana.gif "Hi Ho Fenway, away!"













;) ... Written and originally performed by Santana

38Special
01-22-06, 12:21 PM
Someone take the color and smilie tags away from him

Jace
01-22-06, 12:24 PM
He forgot to change the 's' in the word sneakin to a dollar sign. INVALIDATED

longtimeyankeefan
01-22-06, 02:20 PM
He forgot to change the 's' in the word sneakin to a dollar sign. INVALIDATED

Not to mention $antana

TheScooter
01-22-06, 06:32 PM
Damon sounds bitter and motivated :)


"They just didn't show an interest or a desire in having me anymore," he says. "I was such an integral part of that team, too. When I got there it was 25 guys and 25 cabs. Everybody was doing their own thing.

"I helped change the culture there. I helped them win a world championship. I made a difference on the field and in the clubhouse."

Yet, even though $40 million is a decent, if not extravagant, offer, Damon feels it was just enough for Boston to save face, but not save him from moving on.

"Believe me, if it wasn't the Yankees, there were a few other teams I could've signed with for more money than the Red Sox were offering. They didn't seem to care," he said. "Before I signed with the Yankees, I almost signed with Los Angeles, and Boston's attitude was like, 'Oh well. Big deal.'

"When that fell through, they still didn't make a move. I gave them every opportunity. I don't know, maybe they didn't believe me and that I would go somewhere else."

Damon sighs.

"I tried with them. I really tried. You can look at it and say the money was so much better, but it wasn't just that."

That is why, even to this day, just a month away from reporting for spring training, Damon looks at his offseason and first sees how his four-year relationship with the Red Sox ended, and not that he's beginning with a new team, the Yankees. He talks from the perspective of leaving the Red Sox, and not that he has joined the Yankees.

"It was a very sad day for me as a professional athlete," he says. "My heart was broken. It still breaks on certain days."

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060122/COLUMNISTS0306/601220314/1065/SPORTS

Yankeees
01-22-06, 08:29 PM
Jonny, time to get over your heart being broken. You're a Yankee now.

jnewmark
01-23-06, 07:26 AM
What better way to stick it to a team that broke your heart - go to their arch enemy. I think we will see a highly motivated Johnny Damon this season.

GoYanks
01-23-06, 08:32 AM
What better way to stick it to a team that broke your heart - go to their arch enemy. I think we will see a highly motivated Johnny Damon this season.

Agreed, another quote from that same article:

"I've got something to prove, that's for sure. I'm not old, and I'm not over the hill. I've been working out a lot, I can tell you that."

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060122/COLUMNISTS0306/601220314/1065/SPORTS

JJazz
01-23-06, 05:47 PM
"I've got something to prove, that's for sure. I'm not old, and I'm not over the hill. I've been working out a lot, I can tell you that."

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060122/COLUMNISTS0306/601220314/1065/SPORTS

As inoffensive as that quote is, I'd rather he do his talking on the field. Between that quote and his comments about being the best lead-off hitter in the game, I know I'm in for a long season of wishing Damon catches laryngitis.

YANKfan47
01-24-06, 01:35 AM
i think johnny damon will be a nice addition to the ball club on the new york yankees!

"I want to show the Red Sox that they made a mistake and the rest of baseball that I'm not old — I'm not washed up." - Johnny Damon

nhyankeefan
01-24-06, 07:05 AM
As inoffensive as that quote is, I'd rather he do his talking on the field. Between that quote and his comments about being the best lead-off hitter in the game, I know I'm in for a long season of wishing Damon catches laryngitis.

That's very similar to what he said last year before spring training and he was having a very good year until he messed up his shoulder. I'd take a year like that - without the shoulder injury of course.

Cold Shad
01-24-06, 08:29 AM
i think johnny damon will be a nice addition to the ball club on the new york yankees!

"I want to show the Red Sox that they made a mistake and the rest of baseball that I'm not old — I'm not washed up." - Johnny Damon
Get a fake ID....put up the same or better numbers. Don't listen to the fans and the Media.

YANKfan47
01-24-06, 03:21 PM
Get a fake ID....put up the same or better numbers. Don't listen to the fans and the Media.


what are you talking about? how can you not be happy w/ this addition to the team. the last time the yankees won the world series they had a good lead off hitter in chuck knoblauch...now we have johnny damon and i think the same effect will happen

Dave Visbeck
01-24-06, 08:11 PM
... which means there will be no chance of seeing Alex batting second in the Yankee order anymore I guess.

Damon leads off

then Jeter

then A-Rod

then Shef

then Matsui

then Giambi

then Posada

then Cano

then Bernie???

Is this what I can expect to see from the Yankees with Damon around now?http://xs12.xs.to/pics/05035/icon_old.gif

BJG
01-24-06, 08:13 PM
... which means there will be no chance of seeing Alex batting second in the Yankee order anymore I guess.

Damon leads off

then Jeter

then A-Rod

then Shef

then Matsui

then Giambi

then Posada

then Cano

then Bernie???

Is this what I can expect to see from the Yankees with Damon around now?

The best I think we can hope for is...

Damon
Jeter
Arod
Giambi
Sheffield
Matsui
Posada
Cano
Bernie

Cold Shad
01-25-06, 10:02 AM
what are you talking about? how can you not be happy w/ this addition to the team. the last time the yankees won the world series they had a good lead off hitter in chuck knoblauch...now we have johnny damon and i think the same effect will happen
Check where I'm From, Then maybe figure out what I'm talking about. Iwas trying to be objective. JD should focus on what he is rather than what he is not. Incidentally I have Zero interest in Seeing The Yankees win a WS. Been there Done that.

Rocketman
01-25-06, 06:02 PM
I really hate when people say that the Yankees last won a World Series because they had a Chuck Knoblauch-like leadoff hitter.

Oh really?

So you're telling me that if Mariano doesn't throw the ball into center field in 2001, that's because they had Chuck Knoblauch? He hit .250 that year. Are you telling me that the Yankees lost the 2003 World Series for lacking a leadoff guy, and not because David Wells just shut down? Are you telling me the Yankees lost in the 2004 ALCS because they didn't have a leadoff hitter, or is it because Tom Gordon and Mariano Rivera were overworked?

I really hate this standpoint. It is COINCIDENTAL that the Yankees last won a World Series with a Knoblauch-like leadoff hitter. That's not the REASON they won. That's also not the reason they lost. Damon may be a good addition, who knows, but I doubt his presence is what is going to take the Yankees to a World Series victory singlehandedly.

JeffWeaverFan
01-25-06, 06:34 PM
I really hate when people say that the Yankees last won a World Series because they had a Chuck Knoblauch-like leadoff hitter.

Oh really?

So you're telling me that if Mariano doesn't throw the ball into center field in 2001, that's because they had Chuck Knoblauch? He hit .250 that year. Are you telling me that the Yankees lost the 2003 World Series for lacking a leadoff guy, and not because David Wells just shut down? Are you telling me the Yankees lost in the 2004 ALCS because they didn't have a leadoff hitter, or is it because Tom Gordon and Mariano Rivera were overworked?

I really hate this standpoint. It is COINCIDENTAL that the Yankees last won a World Series with a Knoblauch-like leadoff hitter. That's not the REASON they won. That's also not the reason they lost. Damon may be a good addition, who knows, but I doubt his presence is what is going to take the Yankees to a World Series victory singlehandedly.
Great post and well said. Couldn't agree with you more. And, this team has won a WS with Jeter leading off in 1996. He lead off 3 of the 6 games in that series.

Arod for President
01-25-06, 09:36 PM
Damon Signed with the Yankees?!?!? When the Hell did this happen??

PittsburghYankeeFan
01-25-06, 10:07 PM
I really hate when people say that the Yankees last won a World Series because they had a Chuck Knoblauch-like leadoff hitter.

Oh really?

So you're telling me that if Mariano doesn't throw the ball into center field in 2001, that's because they had Chuck Knoblauch? He hit .250 that year. Are you telling me that the Yankees lost the 2003 World Series for lacking a leadoff guy, and not because David Wells just shut down? Are you telling me the Yankees lost in the 2004 ALCS because they didn't have a leadoff hitter, or is it because Tom Gordon and Mariano Rivera were overworked?

I really hate this standpoint. It is COINCIDENTAL that the Yankees last won a World Series with a Knoblauch-like leadoff hitter. That's not the REASON they won. That's also not the reason they lost. Damon may be a good addition, who knows, but I doubt his presence is what is going to take the Yankees to a World Series victory singlehandedly.

Great post. You forgot Jeff Weaver instead of Mariano in the 12th of Game 4 of the 2003 WS as well. Pitching dominates=WS win. Lineup helps, but there are not tons of 10-9 WS games.

Dave Visbeck
01-26-06, 03:17 AM
... which means there will be no chance of seeing Alex batting second in the Yankee order anymore I guess.

Damon leads off

then Jeter

then A-Rod

then Shef

then Matsui

then Giambi

then Posada

then Cano

then Bernie???

Is this what I can expect to see from the Yankees with Damon around now?http://xs12.xs.to/pics/05035/icon_old.gif


Getting away from Damon for a minute... and some of the "old" talk about the guy. (Even his own) Talking old? Is Shef too old in expecting him to bat at this high a position in the batting order of the Yankee lineup? Bat speed has to slow down someday I would think. How old is he anyway? 38? 39? Seems like he's been around the block a lot of times now. :looking: Would pressure catch up to him finally?

Someone else had him batting fifth. With Damon in the mix, where do you think that Shef will end up batting at in the lineup? http://xs12.xs.to/pics/05035/icon_old.gif

I remember the Red Sox keeping Yaz in the 4th position for too way a long time in age. I loved the guy but... there was a time for some change. :(