Bleacher Creature Feature

#49: "Silly Sutcliffe"

25 September 2003

It's always a crapshoot when former ballplayers are asked to provide analysis. Some of them are able to provide useful insights (I've found that the ones who are also former managers, like Bobby Valentine and Buck Showalter, are most useful in that regard; likewise Ken Singleton, Keith Hernandez, Tom Seaver, and the no-longer-announcing Bill White and Tony Kubek). Some of them are hit-and-miss (Joe Morgan has moments of brilliance and moments of abject stupidity; Harold Reynolds is good at the mechanics of hitting, but makes a fool of himself otherwise; Tim McCarver can be brilliant, but likes the sound of his own voice too much; Jim Kaat has a blind spot against any innovation in the sport that happened after he retired). Some of them are gibbering idiots (Bobby Murcer, Steve Lyons, Fran Healy, Kevin Kennedy, none of whom should ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to speak in public).

Rick Sutcliffe on ESPN is definitely in the last category. I've never been impressed with his analyses on Baseball Tonight or on ESPN.com, but his latest, for ESPN.com's MLB Insider, called "Despite Torre, It's Boston's Year," is goofy even by his low standards. He predicts that the Red Sox will bring the Yankees down and go to the World Series. (You have to be a member of ESPN.com's Insider in order to access the article.)

Leaving aside that Boston and New York both have to get past other teams before they get to each other -- and it would be a mistake to underestimate either Oakland or Minnesota -- Sutcliffe's reasoning is specious, to say the least.

Mind you, there is an argument to be made that Boston could beat New York in a short series. I personally wouldn't be the one to make that argument, but it is there to be made. However, Sutcliffe does not make it.

Exhibit A in Sutcliffe's diminishing of the Yankees is as follows:

"Roger Clemens and David Wells are both 40-something, and it's tough to compete at that age at this level. It's even tougher to compete at this time of year. They've both thrown lots of innings -- 205 for both Rocket and Boomer, good for the AL's top 15."

Uh huh. The first sentence would be understandable in April, but is nonsensical in September when both pitchers have proven over the past six months that they can successfully pitch on the opposite end of the big 4-0. Neither of them have any history of fatigue or exhaustion after long amounts of innings pitched, both of them have remained more or less healthy all year, aside from one major back spasm with Wells, and older pitchers usually stick to established patterns. I don't see Wells and Clemens being any more or less of a concern for New York than Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling were for Arizona in 2001.

Sutcliffe continues:

"Then there's the Yankees' injury factor. Derek Jeter missed six weeks after dislocating his left shoulder in the season opener, and most recently he strained his rib cage earlier this month. He isn't 100 percent, nor will he be."

Buh? An April injury is of absolutely no consequence in this case, and considering that Jeter's still in the running for the batting title, and has been a huge offensive force for the Yankees since returning from the injury (.320/.390/.447), citing Jeter as an impediment to the team winning is patently ridiculous.

"Jason Giambi and Bernie Williams are both playing at less than full health with leg problems (Williams also spent significant time on the disabled list)."

The first valid criticism, though it applies more to Bernie than Giambi, as Giambi is still a big offensive force in the lineup, even if he's not quite up to his usual Herculean standards.

Sutcliffe loses me with this one:

"Plus, Mariano Rivera has shown this season that he is, in fact, human. And their setup situation isn't as solid as it's been in the past."

The former is total horseshit. Rivera had a rough patch at one point in the year and he's more injury-prone than he was a few years ago, but he's still as good a reliever as you'll find anywhere in the major leagues. The latter conveniently ignores the fact that Boston's "setup situation" is about as shaky as the Yanks'.

Here's my favorite:

"Still, the Yankees have to be the AL favorite because of Joe Torre and his postseason experience and success. The other AL managers haven't advanced deep into the postseason. They haven't tasted the World Series. So having Torre in the dugout is New York's biggest advantage this year."

Uh, right. Never mind the fact that this did Torre no good against first-year manager Bob Brenly in 2001 or first-time-in-the-postseason manager Mike Scioscia in 2002. Nor did it much help the even-more-post-season-proven Bobby Cox against first-time-in-the-World-Series managers Cito Gaston in 1992, Mike Hargrove in 1995, or Joe Torre in 1996. And boy, that World Series victory Mike Hargrove had two years earlier sure helped the heck out of the Indians in 1997, didn't it?

I think "New York's biggest advantage" is their potent offense, their pitching staff's stratospheric BB-K ratio, and their ability to get on base and score runs and their concomitant ability to prevent their opponents from doing likewise, which is better than anyone's.

Sutcliffe then makes the case for the Rouge Hose:

"The Red Sox have the best lineup in baseball as well as starting pitchers who can strike guys out. You need power guys in the postseason, either to start the game or to finish the game (as the Angels had last year with postseason setup sensation Francisco Rodriguez and closer Troy Percival).

"The Red Sox lead the AL in strikeouts. Often, playoff games are pitching duels, and it helps to have a staff that can take the pressure off the defense by preventing the opponent from putting the ball in play. The bullpen is one of the few questions about Boston, but because of the offense, there might not be a save situation."

Gee, what a pity the Yankees don't have anyone like that.

Oh, wait -- they do have people like that. Yeah, the Red Sox are first in the league in strikeouts -- guess who's second, and by only 17 strikeouts? And guess who's given up 113 fewer walks than the Red Sox? (No, that's not a typo -- the Red Sox have walked 479 batters, while Yankee pitchers have only walked 366.) I suppose technically it "takes pressure off the defense" by walking people instead of having the ball put in play, but you know, I'll take the flyout over the runners on the basepaths, thanks.

And who do the Red Sox have that are comparable to Rodriguez and Percival exactly?

The final indignity is "because of the offense, there might not be a save situation," as if a wholly arbitrary counting statistic has anything to do with the quality of the bullpen one way or the other. All the save statistic does is indicate who happened to pitch the final inning of a close game.

Thanks to alert readers Matt Shea and Scott Lyddon, who both pointed out that Jim Rice's 163 games in 1978 is not a record, and while Hideki Matsui will tie him, neither of them will have a record. In fact, over 30 players have played over 163 games in a season. (The record is Maury Wills with 165 in 1962, thanks to a three-game playoff at the end of the season.)

NEXT: "Postseason Prognostications 2003"

MAIN PAGE | LATEST UPDATES

Appearances | Bibliography | Biography | Bleacher Creature Feature | Blizzard Games fiction | Buffy the Vampire Slayer fiction | Commentary | Covers and other artwork | Dead Kitchen Radio and The Bronx Bongo | Doctor Who fiction | Dragon Precinct | Fanfiction | Farscape fiction | Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda fiction | Gloat page | Imaginings: An Anthology of Long Short Fiction | KRAD Fan Club | Links | Marvel novels | OtherWere | Pictures | Star Trek fiction | Stories and story & novel excerpts | Urban Nightmares | Young Hercules fiction