A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    The thing with Bard is if he struggles as a starter but the brass still sees potential they can simply say that (when Dice-K is ready) that they don't want to risk his long-term future by Daniel throwing too many pitches, thus a return to the bull-pen in July is necessary.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    There's no way Bard starts 32 games. They probably told him that up front.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    That is okay - at least as of now they have mismanaged Aceves. Lets hope he doesn't have his year go down the tubes because of it.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Please, no tiny sample size judgements.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]1. The forgotten man didn't miss many flyballs like that to right in 4 years. 2.  Not new news here but Ellsbury couldn't even throw it past the mound on a string.  That is Damonesqe. 3.  I love baseball. Go Sox
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]
    Drew probably makes that play. Sweeney got turned around just as Nixon did on Jeter's ball to start that notorious 8th inning in the Bronx in 2003.
    If Sweeney makes that play, then triples, he would have been King for a Day.
    Early in the game, Iggy probably makes the play that Aviles couldn't make on a ball hit to his right. Can't say for sure, of course, but I might as well start what will be season-long chatter about that position.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from teilhardian. Show teilhardian's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Having been at work, I only saw parts of the game on replay but I thought the Sox played very well....Lester was brilliant, and getting shut down offensively by Verlander is nothing to be ashamed about...They handed Valverde his first blown save in a year plus, and showed a lot of moxie to come back in their last at bat...If the Red Sox sort out their bullpen woes, they might be more of a formidable opponent than Yankee fans like to think...Moon is right about sample size, but I would be pretty heartened if I were a Sox fan tonight...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Tom, agreed that it would seem that we had a chance on Ellsbury's play but it wasn't Damonesque! It wasn't that bad. Lots of speed at 3rd. A better arm would have had him though. Reddick. Drew. One would think. Damon couldn't throw somone out at 2nd on that play!
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Hey Boom,

    Damonesque (78 assists from 4618 career PO) may be harsh, but given where he was with a good bit of momentum I'd say his arm is well below average.  Damon may have been run on more over his career but he does have more assists / PO than Ellsbury (1.6%  to  1.3%).


    I'd say 2 butchers in Manny (64 assists from 1598 PO career) and Bay (15 assists in 2009, 63 assists from 2018 PO career) would have easily hit the catcher on a line (if they had caught it!).

    Ellsbury (13 assists from 990 career PO) will always be under the microscope for various reasons.   I was thrilled to watch his stellar year in 2011 and I think his fielding was great last year.  I think it was NHSteven who watched him in Pitt last year and thought his arm was ok (paraphrasing of course).  On yesterday's evidence, I don't think you can say that.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBINFL. Show TBINFL's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Please, no tiny sample size judgements.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    You mean like the one you made about David Robertson?

    Funny how they are OK when they suit your needs.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Having been at work, I only saw parts of the game on replay but I thought the Sox played very well....Lester was brilliant, and getting shut down offensively by Verlander is nothing to be ashamed about...They handed Valverde his first blown save in a year plus, and showed a lot of moxie to come back in their last at bat...If the Red Sox sort out their bullpen woes, they might be more of a formidable opponent than Yankee fans like to think...Moon is right about sample size, but I would be pretty heartened if I were a Sox fan tonight...
    Posted by teilhardian[/QUOTE]

    Teil - what makes you think Yankee fans do not consider the Sox a formidable opponent? I still fear Boston more than any other team in the A.L.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]It was a bad throw. It was a near typical Ellsbury throw, but not quite Damonesgue.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    It was a bad throw but a tough play given a speedy runner. 

    The real issue in the game was the stinking bullpen--Melancon, Padilla, and Aceves.  Morales was OK but gave up the sac fly.  It's just one game, but tends to confirm everyone's worry in the first place. 

    Cherington did go out and get two closers, but one is on the DL and the other appears not to be of AL quality.  Aceves seems to be thinking only about his lost opportunity to start.  Padilla likewise. 

    Little wonder Bobby Valentine is starting with 13 pitchers, 8 in the bullpen. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : Hey Boom, Damonesque (78 assists from 4618 career PO) may be harsh, but given where he was with a good bit of momentum I'd say his arm is well below average.  Damon may have been run on more over his career but he does have more assists / PO than Ellsbury (1.6%  to  1.3%). I'd say 2 butchers in Manny (64 assists from 1598 PO career) and Bay (15 assists in 2009, 63 assists from 2018 PO career) would have easily hit the catcher on a line (if they had caught it!). Ellsbury (13 assists from 990 career PO) will always be under the microscope for various reasons.   I was thrilled to watch his stellar year in 2011 and I think his fielding was great last year.  I think it was NHSteven who watched him in Pitt last year and thought his arm was ok (paraphrasing of course).  On yesterday's evidence, I don't think you can say that.  
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    Tom, I agree that looking where he was and the forward momentum etc... that one would think he makes that play, or most OF make that play. Objective evidence indicates that his arm is not very strong. There is no attempt on my part to sugar coat it. Given all that, I think he was a little startled to see that the guy on 3rd even attempted it and that cost him 1/3 a second. Then the guy on 3rd was also extremely quick to home IMO. 

    A lot of the OF assists thing is when a guy gets a bad rep players run on them a lot more often, providing opportunities for assists. Damon had a shot put arm. I don't know if I ever saw a worse OF arm. Unfortunately, we are probably going to see more people run on Ellsbury's arm now. That was embarrassing.

    Heh, losing to Verlander is not all that uncommon and we put in a solid effort coming back. I like what I see.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Heh, Lavarnway got 2 walks yesterday. Can we bring him up now!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Short sample sizes not withstanding, I felt the Sox played well on opening day. You are just simply not going to hit Verlander, and when he has his off games, it's a rarity. Sweeney gets a 2-out triple to send it to an "extra" frame or in this case the bottom of the ninth. They snap Valverde's 54-game save streak. That is impressive in itself. Big Papi swung the bat with authority, Ryan clutches up with a big hit, Lester throws an outstanding opener, the team turned 3 double plays. I'm pretty pleased with the opener. The loss itself from an odds standpoint was pretty stacked against Sox PRIOR TO THE GAME....Also nice history to see MVP runner-up face MVP in the very first at bat of the following season. Ok, I'm getting ready for a B's Playoff run. Go Sox!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    1. The forgotten man didn't miss many flyballs like that to right in 4 years. 2.  Not new news here but Ellsbury couldn't even throw it past the mound on a string.  That is Damonesqe. 3.  I love baseball. Go Sox
    Posted by tom-uk
    Drew probably makes that play. Sweeney got turned around just as Nixon did on Jeter's ball to start that notorious 8th inning in the Bronx in 2003.
    If Sweeney makes that play, then triples, he would have been King for a Day.
    Early in the game, Iggy probably makes the play that Aviles couldn't make on a ball hit to his right. Can't say for sure, of course, but I might as well start what will be season-long chatter about that position.

    I was going to say something about that as well, but I did make a mental note of +1 plat for Iggy so far.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Having been at work, I only saw parts of the game on replay but I thought the Sox played very well....Lester was brilliant, and getting shut down offensively by Verlander is nothing to be ashamed about...They handed Valverde his first blown save in a year plus, and showed a lot of moxie to come back in their last at bat...If the Red Sox sort out their bullpen woes, they might be more of a formidable opponent than Yankee fans like to think...Moon is right about sample size, but I would be pretty heartened if I were a Sox fan tonight...

    It was a great game to watch. I'm not surprised by fans already jumping off the cliff, but it does make me chuckle. I still feel very good about this season and no single game or even a ten game strecth will change my mind.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBINFL. Show TBINFL's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to  Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : 1. The forgotten man didn't miss many flyballs like that to right in 4 years. 2.  Not new news here but Ellsbury couldn't even throw it past the mound on a string.  That is Damonesqe. 3.  I love baseball. Go Sox Posted by tom-uk Drew probably makes that play. Sweeney got turned around just as Nixon did on Jeter's ball to start that notorious 8th inning in the Bronx in 2003. If Sweeney makes that play, then triples, he would have been King for a Day. Early in the game, Iggy probably makes the play that Aviles couldn't make on a ball hit to his right. Can't say for sure, of course, but I might as well start what will be season-long chatter about that position. I was going to say something about that as well, but I did make a mental note of +1 plat for Iggy so far.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Pure speculation. No guarantee that iggy makes that play. +0

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : Hey Boom, Damonesque (78 assists from 4618 career PO) may be harsh, but given where he was with a good bit of momentum I'd say his arm is well below average.  Damon may have been run on more over his career but he does have more assists / PO than Ellsbury (1.6%  to  1.3%). I'd say 2 butchers in Manny (64 assists from 1598 PO career) and Bay (15 assists in 2009, 63 assists from 2018 PO career) would have easily hit the catcher on a line (if they had caught it!). Ellsbury (13 assists from 990 career PO) will always be under the microscope for various reasons.   I was thrilled to watch his stellar year in 2011 and I think his fielding was great last year.  I think it was NHSteven who watched him in Pitt last year and thought his arm was ok (paraphrasing of course).  On yesterday's evidence, I don't think you can say that.  
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    I'd think that maybe Damon's numbers in Boston (23/1453 or 1.6%) could have been enhanced by the fact that more players ran on Damon than on Jacoby.

    Damon had one of the worst arms I have ever seen in MLB. While Jacoby's is certainly below average, I hesitate to say it is that bad.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Short sample sizes not withstanding, I felt the Sox played well on opening day. You are just simply not going to hit Verlander, and when he has his off games, it's a rarity. Sweeney gets a 2-out triple to send it to an "extra" frame or in this case the bottom of the ninth. They snap Valverde's 54-game save streak. That is impressive in itself. Big Papi swung the bat with authority, Ryan clutches up with a big hit, Lester throws an outstanding opener, the team turned 3 double plays. I'm pretty pleased with the opener. The loss itself from an odds standpoint was pretty stacked against Sox PRIOR TO THE GAME....Also nice history to see MVP runner-up face MVP in the very first at bat of the following season. Ok, I'm getting ready for a B's Playoff run. Go Sox!
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I hope to see you around more often, danny. We've had a few differences, but I agree with your feelings here.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    You mean like the one you made about David Robertson?

    Funny how they are OK when they suit your needs. -TBINFL

    Comparing this sample size to 135.1 IP by Robertson from 2008-2010 is laughable. Plus, you again misrepresented my position. I like Robertson a lot. Even from 2008-2010 he had an 11.31 K/9 rate, but he also had some very concerning issues that raised enough doubt in my mind to dare and say he was a "questionable" player for 2012.
    135.1 IP
    4.72 BB/9 is shockingly bad.
    3.99 ERA for a relief pitcher is not good and worst of all Yankee relief pitchers ffrom '08-'10 with 85+ IP)

    I'm not the only baseball fan who thinks WHIP is a better indicator of a relief pitcher's effectiveness than ERA. Relievers sometimes come in with 1 or 2 outs, so oif course they should have lower ERAs than starters. Here's a look at Yankee releivers with 60 or more IP from 2008 to 2010:
    WHIP
    Mo         0.80
    Coke      0.99
    Aceves   1.01
    Joba      1.24
    Bruney   1.28
    Veras     1.42
    Ramirez 1.44
    Robrtsn  1.44

    I think the 2008-2010 numbers show he is still a question mark going into 2012. 135.1 IP is also a significant sample size. Not large, but not tiny either.
    (BTW, in 152.2 minor league IP, he had a 3.6 BB/9 rate to go along with his outstanding 4.9 H/9 and 12.7 K/9 rates, so the wildness is not a fluke.)

    Please stop misrepresenting my positions. 
    1) I did not judge Robertson a tiny sample size, in fact you judged him on a smaller one than I (2011 and half of 2010 alone).
    2) I never said Robertson was bad or would have a bad year. He's a very good pitcher, but with the potential to be wild and have an off year in 2012.

    As for this...

    Pure speculation. No guarantee that iggy makes that play. +0

    Isn't your +0 "pure speculatio" as well?
    I never said my plays made by Iggy vs not made by Aviles was an exact science. I realize there's a chance Iggy doesn't make that play or flubs one that Aviles did make yesterday, but the kid has great range. He will make plays like that one yesterday much more often than Mike. I'm sticking to my 80-100 play projection.

    Even if he makes that play just half the time, it still comes out to about 80 plays per 160 games.

    (Maybe you should look up the word "projection" in the dictionary.)

    One more misrepresentation of my position and you become the second person I ever put on ignore (which might make you as happy as I).  I don't mind disagreements, but near constant strawman argumentation is a waste of time.
     


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Short sample sizes not withstanding, I felt the Sox played well on opening day. You are just simply not going to hit Verlander, and when he has his off games, it's a rarity. Sweeney gets a 2-out triple to send it to an "extra" frame or in this case the bottom of the ninth. They snap Valverde's 54-game save streak. That is impressive in itself. Big Papi swung the bat with authority, Ryan clutches up with a big hit, Lester throws an outstanding opener, the team turned 3 double plays. I'm pretty pleased with the opener. The loss itself from an odds standpoint was pretty stacked against Sox PRIOR TO THE GAME....Also nice history to see MVP runner-up face MVP in the very first at bat of the following season. Ok, I'm getting ready for a B's Playoff run. Go Sox!
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Agreed, Danny.

    Was very pleased with Sweeney's bat.  He had a tense moment in the OF but he will settle in and settle down out there. If he continues to hit, then he and Cody Ross can be a real upgrade over Crawford/RF.

    I would add that this was a road opener - always tough to win, especially when one is facing the Cy Young/MVP winner from the previous year.

    Set-up/closer combo had a hiccup.  Melancon has question marks, IMO. Aceves not so much. But just a bad day all around for Melancon.  Bobby V did not bring in the hook too early, IMO.  It is an away game and you manage them differently.

    Way, way too early to be panicking.  And the Red Sox have lost the opener quite often in the past - more than 50% in the last decade, I believe.  So the first game, win or lose, is no indication of things to come.

    Which can be good AND bad.

    But I digress.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Robertson's defense, yes, he can get wild, but his ability to have hitters swing and miss at such a high % reduces risk. Hopefully as he matures, his WHIP will decrease. His WHIP last year was 1.125, so you can see the maturing already.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Robertson's defense, yes, he can get wild, but his ability to have hitters swing and miss at such a high % reduces risk. Hopefully as he matures, his WHIP will decrease. His WHIP last year was 1.125, so you can see the maturing already.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    Jessey, I agree 100%. I'd love to have David on our team. I merely mentioned his name as a question mark for 2012, and some Yankee fans went ballistic. Robertson certainly has the potential to do worse or even significantly worse than 2011. I wouldn't bet on him being much worse, but my overall point was that there is a significant potential for a number of Yankee players going into (or continuing) decline from 2011 to 2012. Plus, I made the point based on some comments by Yankee fans assuming we had so many "questions" and that we weren't likely to improve on our lost 600+ IP by pitchers with a 5.35 ERA and 1.43 WHIP from 2011.

    The Yankees are a tough team. They are better than us on paper, but have enough question marks and key players on decline that the race is still very much open. When looking at the two teams comparatively, the Sox players over 33-34 are less in number and less in importance to team success. I was trying to make a point that the trends and age projection decline trends favor the Sox. I don't think my opinion warranted so much venom and misguided criticism. I greatly appreciate your level-headedness and enjoy discussing baseball with reasonable Yankee fans.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : Jessey, I agree 100%. I'd love to have David on our team. I merely mentioned his name as a question mark for 2012, and some Yankee fans went ballistic. Robertson certainly has the potential to do worse or even significantly worse than 2011. I wouldn't bet on him being much worse, but my overall point was that there is a significant potential for a number of Yankee players going into (or continuing) decline from 2011 to 2012. Plus, I made the point based on some comments by Yankee fans assuming we had so many "questions" and that we weren't likely to improve on our lost 600+ IP by pitchers with a 5.35 ERA and 1.43 WHIP from 2011. The Yankees are a tough team. They are better than us on paper, but have enough question marks and key players on decline that the race is still very much open. When looking at the two teams comparatively, the Sox players over 33-34 are less in number and less in importance to team success. I was trying to make a point that the trends and age projection decline trends favor the Sox. I don't think my opinion warranted so much venom and misguided criticism. I greatly appreciate your level-headedness and enjoy discussing baseball with reasonable Yankee fans.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Always a pleasure talking to you Moon - that you know. As to some Yankee fans going ballistic, that is the nature of the forum. Just like Beni's antagonistic threads and Pike and Softy's rants, certain things will not change.

    As to the issue of Yankee's aging players, I believe we also have to take into account that 3 of them are considered to be the some of the hardest working players in the game. No one can question the shape that A-Rod, Mo and Jeter keep themselves in. And if Andy returns, we know that he is also a beast when it comes to keeping himself in shape. Keeping the body in shape will reduce the rate of decline that older players tend to see. Then you throw in the fact that Mo, Jeter and A-Rod also happen to be as athletically gifted as any players that have walked onto the diamond these last 20 years and you can see why Yankee fans are not fearing the age factor as much as one would think, at least not for this year.

    Now there is little question that it will catch up to them one day. And NY will pay for it, especially when it comes to that absurd contract Fat Hank gave A-Rod. Based on the second half of last year and the scouting reports I have read during S.T., Jeter seems to have found a bounce in his step. I don't think we will ever see Jeter become an empty hole in the line-up, even up to the day of his retirement. A-Rod has changed his heavy workout of strength training to include flexibility training because of the hip issue. So NY should still expect legit clean-up hitter numbers from him, just not the absurd ones he put up 5 years ago. As for Mo - I truly believe he is a freak of nature. I don't think we can every explain his success. He has lost 5 mph on his fastball and his numbers get even better.

    I think for the most part, Yankee fans have some concerns, they just don't express them as much. NY has been to the post season 16 of the last 17 years. We all know that the bubble has to burst every now and then. But for now, we just keep riding the wave until that wave leaves us dead in the water.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBINFL. Show TBINFL's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : Jessey, I agree 100%. I'd love to have David on our team. I merely mentioned his name as a question mark for 2012, and some Yankee fans went ballistic. Robertson certainly has the potential to do worse or even significantly worse than 2011. I wouldn't bet on him being much worse, but my overall point was that there is a significant potential for a number of Yankee players going into (or continuing) decline from 2011 to 2012. Plus, I made the point based on some comments by Yankee fans assuming we had so many "questions" and that we weren't likely to improve on our lost 600+ IP by pitchers with a 5.35 ERA and 1.43 WHIP from 2011. The Yankees are a tough team. They are better than us on paper, but have enough question marks and key players on decline that the race is still very much open. When looking at the two teams comparatively, the Sox players over 33-34 are less in number and less in importance to team success. I was trying to make a point that the trends and age projection decline trends favor the Sox. I don't think my opinion warranted so much venom and misguided criticism. I greatly appreciate your level-headedness and enjoy discussing baseball with reasonable Yankee fans.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I really didn't see anyone going "ballistic". If you consider those responses "ballistic" then you would have to say the same about your replies.

    And you have been beating the "age projection declines" horse for a number of years. Even with Arod and Jeter declining due to age the Yanks still manage to come out on top of the sawx. But keep beating that dead horse because some day you will actually be right.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Always a pleasure talking to you Moon - that you know. As to some Yankee fans going ballistic, that is the nature of the forum. Just like Beni's antagonistic threads and Pike and Softy's rants, certain things will not change.

    True enough, my friend. True enough.

    As to the issue of Yankee's aging players, I believe we also have to take into account that 3 of them are considered to be the some of the hardest working players in the game. No one can question the shape that A-Rod, Mo and Jeter keep themselves in. And if Andy returns, we know that he is also a beast when it comes to keeping himself in shape. Keeping the body in shape will reduce the rate of decline that older players tend to see. Then you throw in the fact that Mo, Jeter and A-Rod also happen to be as athletically gifted as any players that have walked onto the diamond these last 20 years and you can see why Yankee fans are not fearing the age factor as much as one would think, at least not for this year. 

    This is true, but how long can great athletes and hard workers put off the inevidable?

    I am not saying these three are going to drop off the face of the earth in one season, but ARod and Jeter have already shown decline. 

    My point was that several Yankee key players have significant chances of decline from 2011.

    Now there is little question that it will catch up to them one day. And NY will pay for it, especially when it comes to that absurd contract Fat Hank gave A-Rod. Based on the second half of last year and the scouting reports I have read during S.T., Jeter seems to have found a bounce in his step. I don't think we will ever see Jeter become an empty hole in the line-up, even up to the day of his retirement. A-Rod has changed his heavy workout of strength training to include flexibility training because of the hip issue. So NY should still expect legit clean-up hitter numbers from him, just not the absurd ones he put up 5 years ago. As for Mo - I truly believe he is a freak of nature. I don't think we can every explain his success. He has lost 5 mph on his fastball and his numbers get even better. 

    I think for the most part, Yankee fans have some concerns, they just don't express them as much. NY has been to the post season 16 of the last 17 years. We all know that the bubble has to burst every now and then. But for now, we just keep riding the wave until that wave leaves us dead in the water.

    I wouldn't ever project decline for Mo, but I do think it is totally reasonable to project further decline from ARod and Jete. 

    Age issues are tough to call. Like I said, I have been bringing up the Yankee age issue since 2010. Posada did drop off quickly, but I don't expect the same from jeter or ARod, but the important part about the Yankee age issue is that their older players hold very key roles in the chances of Yankee success.

    Closer: 43 in November (Mo)
    SS: 38 in June (Jete)
    #2 starter: 37 (Kuroda) 
    3B: 37 in July (ARod)
    #5 starter: 36 in October (Garcia)
    DH: 40 in June (Ibanez)

    That's 6 of perhaps the most important 18 players on the team that are pushing 36 or more.

    I rememeber several Yankee and Sox fans being critical of the Sox aging players who were basically just our #6 starter, back-up catcher and starting RF'er.
     

Share