According to the team website he is. And the idiot ESPN panel. Should an inning two days before a start affect a pitcher at all? I'm sure with the micro-analysis Hughes gets every time out, it will be mentioned if he shits the bed.
at the very least it's prompted an old yellering of Posada. Hopefully Montero is up by Tuesday. Chavez at Third. Then have a pack of dogs anal rape Nunez
I agree in principle, but having used Logan, Wade, Soriano, Robertson and Mo, Girardi basically had to choose between Hughes and Ayala (who threw a ton of pitches in an ineffective outing yesterday.) Considering that it was Hughes' throw day anyway, I'm OK with having him pitch. It's just too bad that he couldn't do a better job.
To be fair, Nunez did hit a home run tonight--the guy's money at the plate. Unfortunately Eduardo Scissorhands can't field any position even a little bit. He's a very good backup infielder, but the Jeter/A-Rod injuries have made us see way to much of his "fielding."
I'm very happy that Posada has gotten reduced playing time. A-Rod and Chavez sharing the DH is a much smarter mode of operation..... Nunez' fielding is garbage but he can hit. He knows what he needs to work on this offseason.
Nunez is not really much of a hitter. He's got a wrc+ of 102 and grades out negatively fielding. I suppose he's slugging at a higher clip than jeter, but both are bad fielders, and when it comes down to it i think i prefer jeter's sure handedness over nunez scissorhands. what's really killing us is the lack of hits in risp - something that should normalize over time, but is annoying none the less. I just wish we could optimize this lineup like a good team should, but we're the Yanks and it takes us more than 100 games to realize our DH aint doing diddly poo. Our future's so bright with all the talent we have in the minors, it's just such a shame when we do stupid shit like sign jeter to play short for 4 more years or sign Arod to a 10 year contracts. It's really criminal and does a disservice to us yank fans.
The A-Rod contract looks bad but it was signed after his second MVP, pre-steroid scandal. Management was handcuffed, you can't really ask an MVP to take a paycut. I think he'll produce for most of it, though, especially when he's moved to perma-DH. Jeter's contract is bad. It's pretty much a medal of honor for all he's done for the franchise... Maybe they move him to 3B in a few? No way he is still playing SS regularly in 2 years.
I definitely prefer Jeter's defense to Nunez's, there's no point in having range if you are gonna kick the ball / launch it into the seats behind first base. That said, most teams don't get any kind of production from their backup shortstop, and Nunez is still young and should get better with experience. He's just been overexposed due to the back to back injuries on the left side of the infield. Also, about runners in scoring position, surprisingly the Yankees are the second best team in the league with RISP. Last night was shitty though.
Fuck Girardi , he cost us the game . Also nunez is the ultimate turd he makes jeter look like ozzie smith in the field . Sent from my Evo 3D using Tapatalk
Any time a team has to play by the other league's rules, it is a disadvantage. There is a fundamental difference in roster construction. If the Sox were an NL team, not only would I be bored to tears, they would not have constructed their roster so that their two best power threats played the same position. Ortiz would play first and they would have traded for say, Bautista for example, or the Gonzalez trade would have meant not picking up Ortiz's option and using those resources for a power hitting outfield free agent. The degree of disadvantage is up for debate, but to deny it exists is foolish.
Actually, I was thinking Mo should have stayed in. He threw, what, nine pitches? And today's an off day. Tough to grade him that definitively on 200 some odd PAs as a 24-year-old. So let's say you lost to a seven-year-old in basketball and then complained that you have a competitive disadvantage because you're used to playing on hardwood, not asphalt. According to your reasoning here, people should just nod their heads and acknowledge that, yes, playing on a different surface than one is used to is a disadvantage. After all, to deny that such a disadvantage exists is foolish.
Correct. I would absolutely have a disadvantage. Now, the obvious advantages I would have over a seven year old would likely outweigh that disadvantage (probably. I'm pretty terrible at basketball), but the disadvantage would still exist. You're taking too narrow a view. Replace the seven year old with someone of comparable skill who normally plays on asphalt. Would I not be at a disadvantage? Fundamentally, any time a team has to play by different rules than it was constructed to play by, it creates a disadvantage.
This misses the point. You seemed to be arguing that what Youkilis said wasn't douchey and the defense you gave was that it was "true" that there was a competitive disadvantage. My point is that whether or not it's true in an absolute sense, devoid of context, that's not what made him a crybaby about it. If you want a less exaggerated hypothetical scenario, say the Miami Heat lost to the Timberwolves under similar circumstances described above, and LeBron blamed the court material. He'd be called a crybaby (and rightfully so), despite the "fact" that the Heat were apparently at a disadvantage. Why? Because the other disadvantages inherent in the matchup (namely talent, and indirectly payroll) dwarf any advantage conferred by court material (or DH rules).
This is where I disagree. While the court surface does not, the rule difference fundamentally changes the talent level of a team. So while the Red Sox may still have more talent than the Pirates without the DH, the same can't really be said of the Phillies for example. Speaking of context, how about putting Youkilis' quote in context. Here, watch for yourself: http://www.nesn.com/2011/06/kevin-y...nterleague-play-hopes-commissioner-revie.html He's hardly a crybaby about it, and he's not blaming the loss on it. He was asked a direct question about Ortiz having to be on the bench, and he answered it. His quote didn't say that they lost because of it, or even limit it to that series or the Sox in particular. He said that NL teams are at an advantage in NL parks, which is true.
First of all, I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. There are two things that change, depending on whether you're in an AL or NL park: In the NL parks, all the pitchers hit. So the advantage is that the NL teams have pitchers who are more used to hitting (but are still generally shitty). So we can assume the NL pitchers are maybe a bit better offensively and thus have an advantage. Of course, mitigating that somewhat, the AL teams (thanks to the DH) have a much better bench option than the NL teams. In the AL parks, the AL teams get to use a (typically) very good hitter. That's the DH's job, after all. The NL team is at a considerable disadvantage here. Secondly, he didn't say it after losing to the Phillies. He said it after losing to the Pirates. Any "disadvantage" there should be wiped out by the difference in talent. And then some. He said, "We're at a disadvantage a lot, and hopefully we can use the DH in interleague play in the national league parks." Waaaah. It's a cop out, and only a complete homer would try to paint that kind of statement as anything other than a cop out. If A-Rod was saying that after losing to the Marlins or something, he would be blasted (and rightfully so). You're not "at a disadvantage a lot" when your talent and payroll outstrips most of the rest of the league by a mile.
I explained already how I came to that conclusion, and gave a specific example. The team is built with the top two hitters playing the same position. If there was no DH, they would not be built that way. When you take a team's second best hitter out of the lineup, that absolutely changes the talent level of that team. I really don't see how you can possibly say otherwise. First, I already said that the NL team is at a disadvantage in AL parks. I'm not disputing that. For the same reason, AL teams are at a disadvantage in NL parks. They simply aren't built to play by that set of rules. When your basic roster construction needs to be completely different for one set of rules or the other, switching over in either direction negatively affects your team. It really isn't that complicated a concept. Whether or not you still have a higher talent level after the downgrade isn't relevant, and doesn't change the fact that your team was, in fact, negatively impacted.
In the context of this discussion, it's the only thing that is relevant. You seem to be having an imaginary argument against someone who doesn't think the disadvantage exists. No one has argued that. It's there. But the point is that it is such a small disadvantage, relatively speaking, when playing a team like the Pirates that it should be ignored... or you're going to seem like a crybaby. Anyone on the Red Sox complaining about a "competitive disadvantage" after finishing a series against the Pittsburgh Pirates is going to look ridiculous. If he said it after playing the Phillies, it'd still sound like excuse making, but it would at least be a bit more understandable.
You're the one having imaginary arguments. All I said was it is true that playing in an NL park is a disadvantage for an AL team. That's it. And it is. I never said it's a big enough disadvantage to change the outcome of the game or anything else at all. I didn't even disagree with your assertion that it was "douchey". I didn't agree with it, but I certainly didn't actively disagree. I just said "maybe". In any event, it wasn't even a slight part of my argument.
Come on. You said it in response to Youkilis's comment, in a post where you defended him about the other crybaby stuff. I've consistently acknowledged that it's a disadvantage, but have also consistently related it to the context of Youkilis's comment. Sorry if that's not the conversation you wanted to have. Way to own it.
