Oliver Perez: Worst Game 7 Starter Ever?

Game Seven is supposed to be the ultimate showcase for the game's best players. Seventh games are supposed to be started by Sandy Koufax ... Bob Gibson ... Roger Clemens ... Pedro Martinez. Unfortunately, tonight's game between the New York Mets and St. Louis Cardinals features the worst game seven pitching match-up in baseball history.

It's easy to forget that in 2004, Oliver Perez was a 22-year-old stud who struck out nearly 11 batters per nine innings while compiling a 2.98 ERA (6th best in the NL). Two short years later, Perez is the worst pitcher who's ever started a game seven ... by a reasonably wide margin. A harsh assessment ... until you examine the facts.

This season, Perez went 3-13 with a 6.55 ERA. There was only one pitcher in baseball who pitched more than 100 innings with a worse ERA than Perez (Brian Moehler's 6.57 ERA with Florida). In Game 4 of this series, Perez gave up five earned runs - including three homers - in 5 2/3 innings. So why does he get the ball with the Mets season on the line? Primarily because injuries to Pedro Martinez and Orlando Hernandez leave manager Willie Randolph with few options (though he'd better have Darren Oliver, Steve Trachsel and Aaron Heilman ready to go at the absolute first sign of trouble tonight).

The good news for the Mets is that Cardinals starter Jeff Suppan has the second worst career ERA (4.60) among game seven starters in baseball history. [In Suppan's defense, in seven career post-season starts, he's 3-3 with a 3.07 ERA over 41 innings, including eight innings of shutout ball in game three against the Mets.] The bad news for the Mets is that the worst career ERA among game seven starters in baseball history belongs to - you guessed it - Oliver Perez (4.67).

A-Rod vs. Pujols

How come when Alex Rodriguez goes 1-14 in the post-season (with no RBIs), he's a choke artist who can't handle the pressure of New York ... yet when Albert Pujols goes 4-14 against the Mets in the post-season - also with zero RBIs - it's because he's "nursing a sore hamstring"? Maybe because Joe Torre (and the entire Yankees organization) appear perfectly content to let ARod take all the heat for the team's collapse ... while Tony LaRussa is going out of his way to shield his superstar from unnecessary criticism.

Ryan Howard: New Home Run King?

Philadelphia's Ryan Howard has hit a league-leading 53 homers in the Phillies' first 138 games. With 24 games to play, he's on pace to hit 62 home runs (62.4 to be exact). If Howard hits 62 homers and if you believe he is not using any performance-enhancing drugs and if you believe Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were all using performance-enhancing drugs in the six seasons (all between 1998 and 2001) in which they hit over 61 home runs (and who doesn't at this point?), then baseball fans could be witnessing history being made. Ryan Howard has a chance to top the 61 home runs hit by Roger Maris in 1961 and become the all-time non-asterisk single season home run king.

Unfortunately, any athletic accomplishment these days is automatically - and understandably - subject to skepticism. The steroid cloud which hangs over all of sports - but especially baseball - has reduced Howard's historic chase to an afterthought. If Howard is clean, then that's a shame. If he's not clean, that's an even bigger shame . . .

Rick Monday Saves the American Flag

Most baseball fans know the story of Rick Monday saving the American flag ... but relatively few have seen it. A little background: On April 25, 1976, during a game at Dodger Stadium, two spectators ran into the outfield and attempted to set fire to an American flag they had brought with them. Monday, playing CF for the Cubs, dashed over and grabbed the flag away from them. The crowd cheered for Monday as ballpark police arrested the two intruders. Interesting bit of trivia: Rick Monday served six years in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves.

Believe It or Not, the Final 19 Knicks Games Really Do Mean Something ...

Both New York Knicks teams were on display in last night's 121-117 double-OT victory over the Atlanta Hawks at Madison Square Garden. For the first three quarters, it was the high-priced "stars" who have been mailing it in for weeks: Jalen Rose, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Eddy Curry, Jerome James and Malik Rose. In fairness to Malik Rose, he's not mailing it in ... he's just not good.

Scary thought for New York fans: Once this season ends, the Knicks are still contractually obligated to those six players for another 19 years and $222,250,283! Throw the inactive Quentin Richardson and Maurice Taylor onto the deadweight/unmoveable pile and the obligation becomes $266,655,283 for 24 years of unwanted service -- over $11.1 per season! After three quarters of sleep-walking, "those" Knicks were trailing the 20-41 Hawks by a score of 73-65.

To start the fourth quarter, Larry Brown inserted the "other" five Knicks ... the ones who still seem to care enough to play some defense and scramble for loose balls: Nate Robinson, David Lee, Jamal Crawford, Qyntel Woods and Jackie Butler. That group of players outscored the Hawks 56-44 over the final quarter and two overtime periods to get the win. They also woke up the Garden crowd by simply putting forth effort. Sure, they made mistakes (they are Knicks, after all) ... but they were able to compensate with hustle and determination.

Larry Brown has talked all season about "playing the right way". Well, last night he finally stumbled across five guys who were willing to "play the right way". Brown has done an awful job this season ... by far, the worst coaching - both on and off the court - of his career. However, he still has 19 games in which to attempt to get his message across and lay the groundwork for the future.

If Brown's "play the right way" mantra means anything at all then the starting five tomorrow night against Detroit will be the five players that were on the court at the end of the Atlanta game. This switch would accomplish two things: reward the players who are trying to "play the right way" and motivate/punish the players who are unwilling (or, again in Malik Rose's case, unable) to "play the right way".

Will the benched players take the message the right way and adjust their attitudes? The answer will almost certainly be a resounding NO. However, Larry Brown shouldn't care. There are 19 games remaining on the schedule. The Knicks can't make the playoffs and - thanks to the crafty wheeling and dealing of Isiah Thomas - don't even own there first round pick in the next draft. In other words, it really doesn't matter whether the Knicks go 19-0 or 0-19 the rest of the way. What does matter is that they play with some heart.

If Larry Brown starts Robinson, Lee, Crawford, Woods and Butler tomorrow night (and gives them significant minutes the rest of the way), he will be sending a clear signal that he still cares and is still committed to turning this franchise around.

If, on the other hand, Larry Brown reverts to a starting lineup of Marbury, Francis, Rose, Rose and Curry, then that's a clear signal that he has surrendered ... not only on this season but on the future of the Knicks as well.

O'Neil and Minoso Overlooked ... Again

A special committee of 12 "experts" has reviewed a list of 39 people from the Negro Leagues and pre-Negro Leagues and decided that 17 of them deserved induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Great! While few - if any - of the 17 names will be recognized by anyone but baseball historians, it's about time the Hall of Fame recognized more of those associated with the Negro Leagues. That's the good news ...

Baseball, however, always seems to find a way to screw things up. Of the 39 candidates on the ballot, only Buck O'Neil, 94, and Minnie Minoso, 83, are still alive and could have enjoyed the honor and taken part in the induction ceremonies on July 30. So the panel of "experts" - in their infinite wisdom - chose NOT to put them in. There are few things more subjective than deciding who belongs in the Hall of Fame and who doesn't ... especially when you're talking about players and executives whose contributions came over 50 years ago. Yet somehow the "experts" were able to sift through the sketchy stats available on the Negro League careers of O'Neil and Minoso and determine that they DO NOT belong in Cooperstown. Morons. They took an opportunity to make this summer's induction ceremonies truly special and chose instead to penalize O'Neil and Minoso for not being dead. Nice job guys.

Goodbye Sammy Sosa ...

Sammy Sosa has officially entered the Latrell Sprewell phase of his career. Both players were stars in their respective primes and were compensated richly for their services (Sprewell ~ $100 million; Sosa ~ $125 million).

However, Sprewell and Sosa are no longer productive players. Their skills and statistics have diminished to the point that there are few – if any – teams interested in their services. Toss in the fact that both are high maintenance and tend to be disruptive influences and it's easy to see why neither is in high demand. Yet both players still feel as if they should be treated like royalty.

Despite making more money than either of them will ever need, Sprewell and Sosa have made one thing crystal clear: They're only in it for the money.

Last year, Sprewell turned down a 3-year, $27 million contract extension from the Minnesota Timberwolves saying "Why would I want to help them win a title? They're not doing anything for me. I've got a lot at risk here. I've got my family to feed". Sprewell is now where he belongs -- out of basketball (and any GM that is still considering offering him a contract should be fired on the spot). Good riddance Latrell.

Similarly, Sosa is reportedly "considering retirement" a more attractive option than the one-year, non-guaranteed offer of $500,000 he has received from the Washington Nationals. Sosa "feels that the lack of interest in his services this winter constitutes a humiliation". In other words, "If I don't get paid more than I’m worth, then I'd rather not play at all".

If you're still wondering why only one team is even marginally interested in Sosa's services, consider the following: In 2005, a total of 223 major league players had 400 or more plate appearances. Of these, 205 were more productive than Sammy Sosa (based on OPS, or on-base percentage plus slugging percentage). That's right, only 17 hitters in all of baseball were worse than Sosa last season. Think it was just an off year? Consider this trend:

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005	HR 64 49 40 35 14	RBI 160 108 103 80 45	BA .328 .288 .279 .253 .221	OBP .437 .399 .358 .332 .295	SLG .737 .594 .553 .517 .376

Sosa is 37. You don't have to be a sabremetrician to see where this is headed ...

If Sammy Sosa truly believed he had anything left in the tank (or really cared about getting the 12 homers he needs to get to 600), then he'd be looking for nothing more than an invitation to training camp with the promise of a fair shot to earn a starting job. Since he's made it perfectly clear that he's looking for guaranteed cash rather than an opportunity to prove himself, the Washington Nationals should pull their offer off the table. Goodbye Sammy ...

The next time we talk about Sammy Sosa should be in five years when we're debating how to judge his Hall of Fame statistics against the collective taint of corking his bat, allegedly using performance enhancing drugs and conveniently forgetting how to speak English during the Congressional hearings on steroids.

How Much is Not Enough?

The rules for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame require that a "player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons". Nowhere, however, does it set a minimum requirement for how much a player must play ... only that he played. In other words, a player making a single plate appearance per season for ten seasons would be eligible for induction to the Hall of Fame. Ludicrous example, right? Well, yes and no. A player who appeared in only ten career games would never be elected into the Hall of Fame. However, it does raise the question of just how much a player must play in order to be considered for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

For example, what's your initial impression of a player who:

* appeared in less than one-third of his team's games over his career

* appeared in the equivalent of 116 complete (nine-inning) games over the course of his career ... or less than three-quarters of one complete (162 game) season

* was on the bench for over 94% of the innings played by his team during his active career

Sound like a Hall of Famer ... or a part-time, role-player? Well, guess what? It’s both. The Hall of Fame player is Bruce Sutter and the part-time role was as a relief specialist -– a closer. Sutter was – without a doubt – excellent at what he did. That's not the question. The question is:

How great do you have to be to gain induction into the Hall of Fame when you’re on the field less than 6% of the time?

During Sutter’s 13-years in the majors (he missed one entire season due to injury), he appeared in 661 games and pitched a total of 1,042.3 innings. Sutter’s innings pitched total is the lowest among all Hall of Famers inducted primarily as pitchers. In fact, even Babe Ruth pitched more innings -– and he only pitched in 163 games during his entire 22-year career.

To put the brevity of Sutter’s career in a more contemporary perspective, consider the following:

Mark Buehrle, Barry Zito, Freddy Garcia, Jeff Weaver, Javier Vazquez, Mark Mulder and Roy Halladay are all under 30-years-of-age ... yet each of these young hurlers has already surpassed Sutter’s career total for innings pitched.

Granted, the role of a closer is very specialized ... and continues to evolve. Closers today do not pitch as many innings per appearance as Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage did in the late 70s and early 80s. So where does this trend end? Mariano Rivera has averaged under 75 innings per season over his first 11 years and he's the greatest closer in baseball history -– a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Again, where does it end?

The closer role has already been reduced to protecting a lead for only three outs. Would a great closer still be Hall of Fame-worthy if the role is further reduced to getting just the final out of the game ... or only 25-30 innings pitched per season (75-90 appearances on one out each)?

Sounds crazy ... but no more crazy than it would have sounded to a baseball fan 50 years ago if you told him that changes in baseball strategy would eventually lead to some of the most dominant pitchers in the game pitching the fewest innings ... or that a player who spent over 94% of his career on the bench would be voted into the Hall of Fame.

Sutter's Hall Call: Subjective or Arbitrary?

Congratulations to Bruce Sutter on being elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. After failing to gain the required 75% of the vote on his first 12 tries, Sutter now joins Hoyt Wilhelm (elected in 1985), Rollie Fingers (1992) and Dennis Eckersley (2004) as the only relief pitchers enshrined in Cooperstown.

Question: What makes Sutter a Hall of Famer in 2006 when he wasn't deemed worthy of induction in any of preceding 12 years?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Bruce Sutter's career stats are exactly the same as they were when he recorded his 300th and final save in 1998. If he deserves to be voted into the Hall of Fame now, then he should have been voted in way back in 1994. If he didn't deserve to be voted in back in 1994 (not to mention 1995-2005) then he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame now.

This is not intended as an indictment of Sutter. This is an indictment of the baseball writers who do the voting. Look at how their opinion of Sutter has steadily improved while the case for his induction has remained exactly the same:

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006	Votes 109 137 137 130 147 121 192 245 238 266 301 344 400	% of Votes 23.9% 29.8% 29.2% 27.5% 31.1% 24.4% 38.5% 47.6% 50.4% 53.6% 59.5% 66.7% 76.9%

In 1994, over three-out-of-every-four voters felt Bruce Sutter did not belong in the Hall of Fame. This year - 12 years later – over three-out-of-every-four voters feel that Sutter does belong in the Hall of Fame. In other words, over 50% of the voters (largely the same group of writers) changed their mind ... for no reason whatsoever.

Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal opinion.

Arbitrary: Determined by impulse; seemingly random or without reason.

Herein lies the problem. Hall of Fame voting is subjective by nature ... that's fine. In fact, that's what makes the debate entertaining. But 50% changing their minds for no reason? That makes the inclusion of a borderline case (like Sutter) seem almost arbitrary. Subjective is OK. Arbitrary is not OK.

What do we mean by arbitrary? Let's look at an example. Currently, candidates receiving less than 5% of the vote are removed from the ballot. Let's assume a different cutoff, say 50%. In other words, if the majority of voters feel a player belongs in the Hall of Fame, he stays on the ballot. If the majority feels he does not belong, he's off the ballot. Is 50% arbitrary just as arbitrary as 5%? Yes. But unreasonable? No.

Yet, under this scenario, Bruce Sutter would not have been voted into the Hall of Fame. Neither would Ryne Sandberg, Gary Carter, Billy Williams, Hoyt Wilhelm, Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale or Duke Snider. Over the past 25 years, all of these players climbed in the voting from under 50% to over 75% ... without doing a thing. Voters changed their vote without reason ... arbitrarily.

Here's another example of the arbitrary nature of Hall of Fame voting. Voters like to vote for at least one player each year. So this year – with no automatic first ballot Hall of Famers – was seen as a great opportunity for a frequently passed-over candidate like Sutter (or Goose Gossage or Jim Rice) to get in ... and it was. Next year's ballot will have Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn on it for the first time (not to mention the juice brothers, Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire). Translation: Neither Gossage nor Rice will not get in next year. Not because they will be – in any way – more or less qualified, but rather because voters will be focusing on other players.

2008 will present another golden opportunity for a borderline case to get in. Why? Simply because Tim Raines will be the best first-timer on the ballot and voters will again give Gossage and Rice and Andre Dawson a closer look ... and - in all likelihood - arbitrarily decide that at least one of them deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Proposal: Leave balloting the way it is. It's flawed but should remain relatively unchanged for the sake of historical consistency. However a new tier of the Hall of Fame should be created ... only it would be limited to 100 players. The Hall of Fame's Hall of Fame. Ten players would be added every year for the next ten years. After that, voters could elect to add a new player to the Top 100 ... but they would have to identify the player they are replacing as well. Voting Ripken and Gwynn into the "regular" Hall of Fame next year is easy. Voting either of them into the Top 100 – when you also have to identify who is to be removed - is an infinitely more difficult call. Subjective? Yes. Fascinating new fodder for debate? Absolutely. But arbitrary? Not at all.

Final 2005 Grades for New York Teams

2005 is over. Time to hand out grades to the professional sports franchises in New York. By New York, we include the football Giants and Jets (which are really New Jersey teams) AND the Buffalo Bills (which really is a New York team). First a look at each team's winning percentage [and record] during calendar year 2005 (including playoff games, if any):

Team Giants Rangers Yankees Nets Mets Islanders Devils Bills Knicks Jets	Winning Pct. [W-L] .706 [12-5] .667 [22-11-5] .581 [97-70] .563 [49-38] .512 [83-79] .486 [17-18-2] .471 [16-18-5] .313 [5-11] .296 [24-57] .222 [4-14]

Collectively, New York teams went 329-321 for an entirely uninspiring .506 winning percentage. Five teams had winning records, while five others lost more games than they won. Three teams (Yankees, Nets, Jets) played post-season games. One other team (Giants) played well enough in 2005 to qualify for the playoffs in 2006. Three other teams played a sport (hockey) which - through its own stupidity - didn't even have any playoffs in 2005.

GRADES:

Yankees: C+
For most teams, a 95-67 regular season, a division title and a trip to the playoffs would merit a significantly better grade than a C+ -- the Yankees aren't most teams. With the highest payroll and winningest tradition in sports history, nothing less than winning the World Series is truly acceptable ... and for the last five years the Yankees' final game of each season has been a playoff loss. Not acceptable. Maybe Johnny Damon can help change that in 2006.

Mets: B-
How do the Mets finish 12 games worse than the Yankees and still get a better grade? Lower expectations. New-additions Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran led the Mets to 83 wins and a third-place finish -- a 12-game improvement over 2004. After adding Pedro Delgado and Billy Wagner, it will take another 12-game improvement and a trip to the playoffs to earn better than a C+ in 2006.

Giants: A-
Rebounded from a disappointing 6-10 season in 2004 to capture the NFC East with an 11-5 mark. Tiki Barber was the New York sports MVP of 2005 (sorry A-Rod). Eli Manning may never be the best quarterback in his family but he's the best in the New York ... by a wide margin (sorry Chad). Note: 12-5 record for Giants includes winning final game of 2004 regular season, which was played in 2005.

Jets: D+
Why not an F? It might seem like ages ago, but the Jets actually started 2005 with a two-week playoff run which - with better coaching and placekicking - could have easily lasted at least another week. The 2005 season began with high hopes but - like so many other season in J-E-T-S history - quickly disintegrated into frustration ... desperation ... embarrassment ... and, finally, talk of rebuilding from scratch. Not pretty.

Bills: D
Finished 9-7 in 2004 and seemed to found a stud running back in Willis McGahee, so Bills fans were not prepared to go 5-11 this season. McGahee proved to be a workhorse but it turns out replacing Drew Bledsoe was harder than expected as neither Kelly Holcomb not J.P. Losman distinguished himself at QB.

Nets: B
Finished the 2004-05 season with a 32-22 run to make the playoffs, only to get swept in four straight by the Miami Heat. Started this season 9-12 before winning eight straight to end silly speculation over coach Lawrence Frank's job security and Vince Carter's value to the franchise. If these Nets played at Madison Square Garden, New York would once again be the great basketball city it still considers itself.

Knicks: F
The reason New York City can no longer be considered a truly great basketball town. Finished last season by losing 36 of their final 53 games. The arrival of Larry Brown raised expectations but the team has done the inconceivable -- they'll actually gotten worse under the tutelage of the Hall of Fame coach. The Knicks receive New York's only failing grade for 2005 ... and they've earned it. While the Jets were nearly as bad [excluding their playoff run that began the year], there are two big differences:

1. The Jets always played hard ... unfortunately, the same can't be said for the Knicks.
2. The Jets still own the high draft pick they earned through their losing ways ... the Knicks dealt their pick - maybe a #1 overall - to Chicago in the Eddy Curry deal. Oops.

Rangers: INCOMPLETE
Devils: INCOMPLETE
Islanders: INCOMPLETE
Sorry, but when the hockey pucks that are in charge of your sport cancel an entire season, you don't get a grade. Check in again next year.

All Cheaters Are NOT Alike ...

Twelve baseball players tested positive for banned substances during 2005. Here are their names:

Alex Sanchez, OF, Devil Rays Jorge Piedra, OF, Rockies Agustin Montero, P, Rangers Jamal Strong, OF, Mariners Juan Rincon, P, Twins Rafael Betancourt, P, Indians Rafael Palmeiro, 1B, Orioles Ryan Franklin, P, Mariners Michael Morse, SS, Mariners Carlos Almanzar, P, Rangers Felix Heredia, P, Mets Matt Lawton, OF, Yankees

Feel free to boo 11 of them next season. Why only 11 ... didn’t they all cheat? Yes, all 12 cheated. So why boo only 11 ... what makes one player different from all the others on the list?

One player was honest. One player admitted he made a mistake and was genuinely embarrassed by his actions. One player offered an apology that came from the heart.

That player is Matt Lawton. He cheated. He got caught. He will be suspended for the first 10 games of the 2006 season ... as he should. But Matt Lawton also explained exactly why he did what he did and then accepted full responsibility for his actions.

Lawton admitted taking boldenone (a veterinary steroid created to treat horses!) late last season to try to play through the pain of a shoulder injury that rendered him almost useless to the Yankees (he hit only .125 in 48 at-bats after coming to New York in a late-season trade). Here’s what he had to say:

"It was such a stupid thing, but I was desperate. Maybe it was the pressure of playing in New York, I don't know. I wasn't playing well enough to be on a Little League roster, let alone be on the roster of the New York Yankees. I just wasn't physically able to do the job. I had never been in the playoff hunt before. So I did something that will always haunt me.

I never had the urge to take any of that stuff before, but I was talking to some guys, and they guaranteed it would get the pain out. I don't want people to think that everything I did, the good years I had, were steroid-related. I learned a lot about myself last year, and I'll be better for it. Now I'm ready to prove it."

The Yankees had no interest in bringing Lawton back but the Mariners recently decided he was worth the risk -- signing him to a one-year contract for a base salary of $400,000, up to $1.25 million in incentives (based on plate appearances) and a no-trade clause. Lawton, on signing with Seattle:

“I look at coming to the Mariners as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean. I'm a grown man and I made a terrible mistake, but the embarrassment was having to tell my family. I had to tell my mom and wife. My daughter is 12 and my son is 5 and explaining to them was the most embarrassing part of it."

How refreshing and - unfortunately – how unique ... not just in sports, but also when compared to the multitude of cheaters and liars in politics and corporate America and every other walk of life.

Baseball’s still-flimsy drug testing policy required Matt Lawton be given a second chance. But it is his words and – more importantly – his character that make him different from the 11 other players that got caught cheating last season. And for that Matt Lawton deserves to be recognized and, yes, even applauded.

Yanks Sign Damon: Time to Celebrate? Not So Fast.

Johnny Damon had a choice on how he wanted to spend the next four years: $40 million richer with long hair in Boston or $52 million richer with short hair patrolling centerfield for the New York Yankees. Damon may be a self-proclaimed "idiot" but he's not stupid -- he took the cash. With Scott Boras as his agent, you really thought loyalty would even be factored into the equation? Think again.

So how does this impact the greatest rivalry in sports? In the short-term, it clearly improves the Yankees and hurts the Red Sox. So Yankee fans should start celebrating, right? Not so fast. On the plus-side, Johnny Damon is a very good ballplayer and he's a clear upgrade in CF over any combination of Bernie Williams and Bubba Crosby. So what's the problem? The problem isn't Damon. It's that CF and the leadoff slot in the batting order are NOT the reason that the Yankees haven't won the World Series in any of the past five years.

Yankee fans are drooling over the thought of Johnny Damon at the top of the batting order. Yes, the batting order is impressive but scoring runs hasn't been the problem -- New York scored the second most runs in baseball last year WITHOUT Damon. And Damon's on-base-percentage last season (.366) would have only ranked him sixth among Yankee regulars. It's not like Derek Jeter (.389 OBP) wasn't getting the job done at the top of the order.

Bottom-line: Damon is a good signing. However, the Yankees were going to make it to their 12th consecutive post-season in 2006 with or without Damon. And once they get there, it's going to be the pitching - not the centerfielder - that determines whether or not they can win their first World Series since 2000. In other words, the most critical off-season signing for the New York Yankees isn't Johnny Damon ... it's Kyle Farnsworth and Octavio Dotel and Mike Myers and Ron Villone. Still feel like celebrating?

Yankees Pitching: Just How Bad Is It?

Yankee fans are understandably distressed by the state of the team's pitching staff. But is it really that bad or is it simply bad by Yankee standards (i.e., bad for a team with a $200+ million payroll)? The numbers suggest it really IS that bad. The staff ERA ranks 10th out of 14 AL teams at 4.62. The last time the Yanks finished that low in ERA was 1992.

Last night, Scott Proctor became the 14th pitcher to start a game for the Yankees this season -- the highest total in the majors this season and the most for the franchise since 1989 ... and there are still 49 games to go.

In case you were wondering, here are the starters for both teams (in descending order based on number of starts):

1989 Andy Hawkins Dave LaPoint Clay Parker Greg Cadaret Walt Terrell Chuck Cary Tommy John Richard Dotson Eric Plunk John Candelaria Dave Eiland Jimmy Jones Al Leiter Kevin Mmahat Don Schulze Lance McCullers	2005 Randy Johnson Mike Mussina Carl Pavano Kevin Brown Chien-Ming Wang Al Leiter Aaron Small Jaret Wright Shawn Chacón Sean Henn Darrell May Scott Proctor Tim Redding Tanyon Sturtze

Note: Al Leiter makes an appearance on both lists.

The 1989 Yankees finished in fifth place in the AL East with a 74-87 record. The 2005 Yankees are currently 61-52 but are in danger of missing the post-season for the first time since 1994. If they do end up watching the playoffs on TV, it's already clear what the problem was ...

Derek Jeter: Overrated?

Before Yankee fans start jumping all over this heretical proposition, let me state - in the spirit of full disclosure - that I am both a Yankee fan and a Derek Jeter fan. Now, that being said, my assertion is that Jeter's reputation for being one of the best - if not THE best - clutch, big-game player in baseball today is not entirely warranted. A clutch player should - by definition - elevate his level of play in the "big" games or, at the very least, maintain his standard level of performance when the pressure is really on. While the perception is that Derek Jeter is one of these players, the fact is that the statistics don't back it up. In 1,366 regular season games, Jeter has put up the following numbers:

Batting Average: .315
On-Base Percentage: .385
Slugging Percentage: .463

In 110 post-season games (an amazing number for a 30-year-old), Jeter has posted the following:

Batting Average: .306
On-Base Percentage: .380
Slugging Percentage: .456

Undoubtedly very impressive post-season numbers ... but also striking similar to - and ever so slightly lower than - his regular season stats. Again, this is not intended as Jeter-bashing -- far from it. It simply illustrates that Jeter basically MAINTAINS his outstanding level of play from the regular-season into the post-season (when the pitching is admittedly superior). And isn't that what really makes him - and the few other like him - a superstar? Jeter doesn't just turn it on for the big games ... he plays EVERY game like it's a big game.