Burnett walks Napoli, and in comes Marte to turn Figgins around. Figgins was 3/3 off Burnett. So Burnett only went 5 and two-thirds, in what was a pretty good start for him. Striking out 11 in Anaheim isn't easy.
^my god, Don, you sound like John Sterling. Waaaaaiiiiittt a minute . . . its all starting to make sense now . . .
I was on my way to the store when Kennedy came in. Sterling was shitting his pants. He could not stop sayin how shocked he was that Kennedy was pitching. he went on and on and on about it
What are you talking about? Bard is great! Hey, at least Kennedy got out of it. Bard would've let two runs in. Odd situation to welcome Kennedy back to the majors, though. And the Yanks get a series win in Anaheim and have split the season series with them 5-5. Anyone care to retract earlier statements?
It's nice to have taken a series from the Angels, for once. With that said, I pray to the halos (alright, pun intended) that we do not play them in the playoffs.
If you're directing that question at me, then the answer is an emphatic NO! We just won our first series in Anaheim in 5 years. I'm not pulling out the party hats and streamers yet. I still want home field because I'm very confident the Yankees can beat LA at home far easier than on the road. Anyway, nice to see Burnett getting Ks. Lots of them. I'll take the early exit in this one. Progress is progress. Also nice to see Kennedy work out of trouble. As they were discussing during the game, yesterday was sort of an audition for him. He has a shot to make the rotation again next Spring. Given that Girardi sat so many starters yesterday, one would have to believe he wasn't that concerned with the win until late in the game. That's a great time to let Kennedy, who worked back from an aneurysm this year, get a chance to really work. I actually thought it was pretty cool of Girardi to stick with him there. To me, that's being a player's coach, and that kind of loyalty to your guys is what buys their loyalty back. As much as I criticize Girardi, this one was one the better decisions I've seen him make. Better still that we won the game.
Easy, now. I was talking about the statements (from you and others) that definitively said they couldn't beat them on the road, or that the Yankees are "in trouble." Link Link Link Link My question is, how many times does something like this have to happen before people stop giving into these knee jerk overreactions based on a handful of games? "They're 0-4 at the Angels! They can't beat them!" "They're 3-1 against them at home! Obviously, they'll be much better against them there!" "They're 0-8 against Boston! They can't beat good teams!" Let the season play out! The Yankees have shown (nearly) all season that they have a very good team. And no, let me preemptively say that this is not a suggestion that you not be upset or act like robots. Just try to have some perspective. Four games do not give accurate predictions of future performance. And incidentally, I'm still curious about your "cherry picking" accusation.
The cherry picking thing referred to your focusing on Jeter, Posada and Mo yet glossing over ARod and others when discussing the recent history vs. LAA. I didn't really feel like continuing an argument I shouldn't have bothered starting. I'd rather we had normal conversations. Anyway, I don't disagree with your "Let the season play out" thing. At the same time, until this series, we hadn't proven we could win a series in their house in half a decade. Now I know you are more along the lines of "anything can happen" and that's all well and good. My perspective is that, overall, this is the same team that has consistently proven an inability to beat the Angels on their home turf for an extended period, and until they prove otherwise, that is something to fear. Well, they've gone a big step toward proving otherwise now. I'm a bit more confident today than I was yesterday, but I'm still looking for home-field, because to me, it makes for a much better situation.
Right, but I didn't gloss over A-Rod and others. I explicitly mentioned them. The comment I was responding to was this: "This is the same Yankees team that has gone into October all damn decade and went home to cry in their beer." I didn't take that as discussing their recent history with the Angels. I took that as complaining about this team's playoff performance in the decade. And there are three players that have been with the team the entire decade. That's not focusing on them. That's just fact. There are others that have been around for some/most of it (like A-Rod, Matsui, and Cano). And I explicitly mentioned them. My point was simply that it's not the "same team" that has gone home to cry all decade, as you put it. Well, my point of view isn't really that "anything can happen" as though we should use that attitude when wishing or hoping about future series. My point is that anything can happen in short series (or more accurately, there is a lot of variance in short series), and it is more likely that we were seeing the effects of that variance than some huge talent disparity. The Sox didn't beat the Yanks eight games in a row because they were a far superior team any more than the Yanks sweep of Boston proved they were superior. You just saw two fairly evenly matched teams experience the swings that happen in games like this. ETA: This is no different than flipping a coin ten times. You expect five heads and five tails. Sometimes you might get seven and three, or even eight and two. Or if you decide to flip it 100 times, you might still start out with five heads in a row. This happens.
The Yankees winning a series in Anaheim doesn't really say anything about the importance of home field. They still would have a much easier time winning in New York than in Anaheim, so they need the extra game in New York. I felt the races for the division and HFA advantage were over already, but this should convince any doubters.
Bottom line is the Yankees have struggled in Anaheim for years going back to 2002. The fact that this was their first series win out there in 5 years speaks volumes about the importance of HFA for them.
Well what does that say about your bitching, then, if it's about a season that doesn't even matter? The laundry's the same. The players aren't, though. Why is this such a hard concept for people? Yes, HFA would be nice to have. It'd make things easier... as it would for any team against any other team. But this club is talented enough that there shouldn't be any problems winning on the road, even against good teams. They proven that throughout the year. And the importance of HFA in a short series is overblown. Look at it this way... what happens if you lose the first game at home? Whoops! There goes HFA. In one game. What happens on the field is far more important than what field it happens on.
As I said yesterday Cappy, you're the single person on the planet who doesn't believe the Yankees' chances against the Angels improve with home-field advantage. BTW: I meant recent overall history against the Angels. I take the blame for the misunderstanding there, since I did write about the postseason. Again, I don't feel like having the argument. Everyone but you worries about the Angels in their house.
