2010 Pitching Staff

Going into to 2010, there are quite a few questions that need to be addressed in terms of the Yankee pitching staff. While they will still have a legit ace at the top of the rotation in CC Sabathia and the best closer ever in Mariano Rivera, there are holes to fill in between. There is the question of what roles Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain will fill, who will be the fourth and fifth starters, and once again, how they will get the ball to Rivera at the end of games.

The Rotation

Assuming they bring back Andy Pettitte, the top three starters are set just like last year: Sabathia, AJ Burnett and Pettitte. After that, there are decisions to be made. Many pundits debate whether Chamberlain or Hughes should be starters at this point, citing their history of effectiveness out of the bullpen. In my mind, there should be no question: they are both starters until they prove beyond any doubt that they cannot succeed in that role. However, it is fair to assume that the Yankees will at least consider using one of them out of the bullpen.

Recently, Brian Cashman has been quoted as saying any innings limit on both Hughes and Chamberlain would not be significant (via Chad Jennings at Lo Hud). So, I'm going to assume that the rotation will look like this: Sabathia, Burnett, Pettitte, Chamberlain, Hughes. The first four seem to be locks, with Hughes needing to earn his spot out of Spring Training against the likes of Chad Gaudin, Sergio Mitre, Alfredo Aceves and perhaps a free agent like Justin Duchscherer. I believe that Hughes will seize this chance and run with it, putting the others in the bullpen mix, where there are more questions to be answered.

The Bullpen

The bullpen was a huge strength of the 2009 team. Although the numbers will show the Yankees to be in the middle of the pack, there's no question that once Hughes shifted to the 8th inning role, they were one of, if not the most dominant bullpens in the league. Other major contributors to the success were Aceves, David Robertson, Phil Coke and the better-late-than-never, Damaso Marte. If you want to read more about the bullpen makeover, check out this article from River Avenue Blues.

Going into 2010, the main question is, once again, who will get the ball to Mo. There are plenty of people who want to see either Joba or Hughes stay in the pen and become the Mo's heir apparent. However, I believe they have other answers internally that will allow them to give those two the chance to succeed in the roles where they will be most valuable to the organization. The emergence of Robertson this year was a pleasant surprise. He showed good velocity and control to go with a plus curveball as averaged 12.98 strikeouts per nine innings (only Broxton had a better average among pitchers with significant inning totals). He has a chance to turn into an elite late inning pitcher with that kind of swing and miss stuff.

I see the 2010 bullpen looking something like this: Rivera, Robertson, Marte, Aceves, Coke, Mark Melancon, Brian Bruney/Gaudin. Robertson and Marte should be able to handle the eighth inning duties with Aceves, Melancon and Coke pitching the middle innings. And let's face it, if there is no other solution, they always have the option to move Joba or Hughes back into the bullpen.

Bold Predictions

David Robertson emerges as the clear-cut eighth inning guy as well as the heir to Mo's throne.

Joba Chamberlain pitches at least 180 innings and wins 17 games with a sub 3.50 ERA. He will become the clear number two behind Sabathia.

AJ Burnett experiences a World Series hangover and spends significant time on the DL.

Chad Gaudin will be a reliable and effective spot starter.

Ian Kennedy will be traded.




Waiting for the Stove to Heat Up

Now that we've all had a few weeks to linger in the glory of World Championship number 27, I think all of our minds are starting to wander towards what offseason moves Cashman and company are going to make in preparation for the title defense of 2010. Let's take a look at some of the rumors we've heard already.

John Lackey:

The top free agent pitcher of the offseason, Lackey's name has been connected to the Yankees through various media sources. The school of thought is that the Bombers have some rotation questions and a veteran guy like Lackey would help to ease those concerns. This notion certainly has its merit: Lackey has been the ace of the Angels staff really since 2002, when he won Game 7 of the World Series on three days rest as a rookie. Coincidentally, this is also when he earned his reputation as a big game pitcher. He proved both of these claims in this year's ALCS, with two strong starts.

However, Lackey is said to be looking for a contract similar to, if not better than AJ Burnett's (5 years/$82.5 million). Should the Yankees be willing to commit that type of money to a 31-year-old who has missed time in the past two seasons with elbow trouble? In my opinion, absolutely not. The Yankees have enough depth (assuming they bring Pettitte back) to pass over Lackey and wait for next year's free agent pitching class, which includes the likes of Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, possibly Matt Cain, Josh Beckett and Brandon Webb. Bringing a pitcher like Justin Duchscherer, who can start and relieve, would be a must more cost-effective solution. Besides, we know that if the All-Star break comes around and they need a pitcher, they have the resources to make a move.

Matt Holliday:

Holliday is the best position player of this year's free agent class. Understandably, he has been linked to the Yankees because they will have an opening in left-field if they choose not to bring back Johnny Damon. The logic here is simple: Holliday is younger, a better defender and another powerful bat to compliment the Yankee offense. However, he is a Scott Boras client. Boras has already said he will be trying to get a contract similar to that of Mark Teixeira for his client. While you'd love to have a player like Holliday, like Lackey, you have to consider the implications of giving him that type of a contract.

A big concern that slowed the trade market for Holliday last winter was fear of his numbers away from the hitter-friendly Coors Field. In 2007, the year he should have been the National League MVP, he hit .340 with 36 home runs and 137 RBI, while OPS-ing an insane 1.012. While those are certainly legitimate numbers, he was not nearly as lethal away from Coors. While he still hit .301 on the road, only 11 of his 36 home runs and 55 of his 137 RBI's came away from home. His OPS and SLG percentage also both took significant hits on the road: while his OPS was 1.157 at home, it was merely .860 away from Coors, and his SLG percentage dropped from a ridiculous .722 at home, to a pedestrian .485 on the road. 

Holliday certainly did nothing to ease his concerns with a slow start in Oakland this spring, before righting the ship after a mid-season trade to St. Louis. This raised yet another question: can he handle the American League? While I have no doubts he is an established player who could help the Yankees, there's no way I'm investing the type of money Boras wants into a player with those questions.

Curtis Granderson:

Recently made available (along with SP Edwin Jackson) by Tigers GM Dave Dambrowski, much speculation has already risen about New York's interest in the left-handed hitting center fielder. Much like Holliday, Granderson broke out in 2007, hitting .302 with 23 home runs and 78 RBI. He stole 26 bases, hit 38 doubles and tripled 23 times. It was a monster offensive year all-around for Granderson, as he put himself on the map in a big way. He also has earned a reputation as an above-average center fielder, making him a seemingly perfect fit in New York. However, the concern with Granderson also comes via the splits.

Even in his monster year of 2007, Granderson has struggled with left-handed pitching. That year, he hit a measly .160 with 3 home runs and 10 RBI of lefties. He also had an extremely low OPS of .494. In 2009, these struggles continued in a big way: his triple slash line (BA/OBP/SLG) was a very weak .183/.245/.239, good for an OPS of .484. Only 2 of his 30 home runs in 2009 came off lefties and he also struck out 42 times in 180 at-bats against southpaws. Keith Law went so far as to say Granderson is now exclusively a "platoon player". So once again, maybe he's the type of guy you'd like to see in Pinstripes, but a what cost? A trade for Granderson would almost certainly cost them Austin Jackson and at least one pitcher of the Ian Kennedy/Ivan Nova mold. If you ask me, that's too much to pay when there are other options for 2010 and Carl Crawford as a free agent in 2011.

Roy Halladay:

There are bound to be numerous rumors of the Yankees trading for "Doc" Halladay this offseason. And in all fairness, it's certainly something to get excited about. Halladay is one of the best pitchers in all of baseball. He's durable (9 complete games in three different seasons), reliable, and has proven effective in the AL East, something fans have to like. There's nothing about Halladay that would make me not want him on any team I was a fan of. However, the price tag may be a little much for my liking, especially when he'll be a free agent next winter.

Any trade for Halladay would almost certainly center around Yankee stud-prospect, Jesus Montero. On top of that, the Jays would likely ask for one of Hughes or Joba, in addition to one or more of the other top arms in the system (Kennedy, Nova, Zach McCallister and etc.) For me, that's too much for one year of Halladay. To steal a line from Mike Axisa over at River Avenue Blues, if it were last year's deadline it would be different. Then you'd be looking at a year and a half of "Doc" and possibly two championships. Now, it seems silly to give up that much talent when you'd just have to pay him for 2011. To me, it'd be better to wait a year, then go get him if they see fit.

So now that we've looked at some of the major story lines so far this offseason, it's time for me to put on the GM hat. First, let's deal with the Yankee free agents: Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, Andy Pettitte, Jerry Hairston Jr., Jose Molina, Eric Hinske and Xavier Nady. If I could bring both Damon and Matsui back on affordable 1+1 deals (1-year with team option for 2011), I would do it in a heartbeat. I think this group could win it all again next year and there's no reason not to have them both back if they can do it reasonably. Next, bringing back Pettitte is a no-brainer, a 1-year deal about $10 million sounds okay to me. If Hairston can be had for at least one more year at a reasonable price, I say he comes back as well. As for Hinske and Molina, in my mind they can both walk. Francisco Cervelli becomes the back-up catcher while Juan Miranda takes Hinske's place as the left-handed bat off the bench. Finally, we come to Nady. Personally, I'd like to see him back on a 1-year, incentive type deal. However, I don't see this happening, as he's too much of a risk at this point and I predict he'll end up somewhere in the NL.

At long last, we come to non-Yankee free agents. I've already voiced my disapproval for signing Lackey and Holliday, and I feel the same way about Jason Bay, Jermaine Dye, Vladimir Guerrero, Tim Hudson, Randy Wolf, Jason Marquis, Joel Pinero and Eric Bedard. Basically, I think this year's free-agent class sucks, and none of them are worth big money. However, there are a few guys I wouldn't mind the Yankees taking a run at. To start, I think Mike Cameron would be a perfect fit as a one year stopgap in the Yankee outfield until Austin Jackson is ready (presumably in 2011). He could play center, which moves Melky Cabrera over to left and instantly improves their outfield defense. Cameron would also provide some pop in the Yankee lineup. I've already mentioned Duchscherer as a pitching target, as I think he makes perfect sense for 2010. He makes a perfect 6th starter (after Sabathia, Burnett, Pettitte, Joba and Hughes) and has pitched in relief before which would provide great depth to their middle relief corps. Finally, if the Yanks don't bring back Matsui, they are likely to play Jorge Posada more at DH. If they're not comfortable with Cervelli catching an increased number of games, a veteran back-up like Gregg Zaun makes a lot of sense. I say Zaun and not Molina because while Molina is great behind the dish, he flat out can't hit, and Zaun would provide a little more offense.

So there you have it. As you can see, I'm not looking for a ton of blockbuster moves this winter. This Yankee team is good enough to win again. The free agents I have my eye on are coming next year.

2009 WORLD CHAMPS! The trophy is back where it belongs

yanks win.JPGWe Yankee fans won't get much sympathy from the folks in Chicago or Cleveland, but it sure has been a long wait for the Yankee faithful. It has been nine long, sometimes painful, years since the Yankees last hoisted the trophy. Back then I was only ten years old, and I thought the Yankees won the World Series every year. I was incredibly spoiled as a young fan, as I unknowingly watched one of the most special teams in the history of baseball win four World Series in five years. My father always told me that someday I'll realize how special that group really was, and I'll realize how much I took it for granted as a young kid.

I'm 19 years old now. I'm a sophomore journalism student at Saint Michael's college. I'm still a die hard Yankee fan. And let me tell you, I'm not taking anything for granted this time baby. I still remember crying in 2001 after the Diamondbacks stole Game 7 to win the series. I still remember being shocked when the Yankees, fresh off Boonie's blast to send them to the World Series, looked so bad against the Marlins in 2003. I especially remember feeling so ashamed and embarrassed in 2004 that I begged my parents to let me stay home from school. And of course, I remember last year; how could the Yankees not even make the playoffs? It was enough to see them merely sneak in with the Wild Card the year before, but they had not missed the playoffs since before I was watching baseball. As much as all of that sucked, it made last night that much sweeter.

Let's face it, as fans of the greatest sports franchise in the world, we're constantly spoiled; not only with championships but with the greatest ownership, players, facilities and fellow fans. It's a lot of fun loving a team everyone else hates so much. For me, 2008 was my first taste of what it felt like to be a fan of one the 22 teams that don't make the playoffs every year. All the sudden, the October baseball I looked forward to so much every year was pointless and boring. I didn't care about anything except seeing the Sox lose. But for most teams, missing the playoffs for the first time in 13 years would often be the start of a downward trend. Not the Yankees. They treated us to one of the greatest seasons ever in 2009.

It was all over the headlines last off-season: big changes are coming. I knew they needed pitching, but I was weary of handing out big contracts to free agent arms after the Pavano, Brown, Wright (and etc.) sagas. I was a big fan of not trading for Santana the previous winter and holding on to Hughes, Joba and Kennedy. So when the Yanks shelled out three contracts worth $423.5 million dollars for CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira and AJ Burnett, I was a bit skeptical and nervous. I had already seen so many pitchers fail in the Bronx, and I had seen Jason Giambi not live up to the hype as a free agent. I really had no idea what 2009 had in store for us.

Luckily for all of us, Carston Charles was every bit the ace we hoped he'd be; Mark Teixeira was a monster both offensively and defensively his first year in pinstripes; and AJ Burnett, while sometimes frustrating, pitched plenty of big games, didn't miss a start, and ultimately was a huge asset for the team. In year one for this trio, they certainly didn't disappoint. 

So the mainstream media and bitter fans can bitch and moan all they want about how much money the Yanks spent on this season. But none of them can take away the trophy. No one can take away all the walk-offs, all the classic games and most of all, no one can take away our memories of watching the Bombers in '09. Live it up Yankee fans. And let's hope it's not another nine years before number 28.

If they could do it over again...

The decision to start AJ Burnett on three days rest in Game 5 was scrutinized every which way. Some were fervently in favor of the move, citing Burnett's history on three days rest (4-0, 2.33 ERA in his career) as well as the alternative, starting Chad Gaudin, as justification. Others clamored for Gaudin simply because it was silly to waste Burnett against Lee (who gave up five earned last night...by the way) and because it was set up AJ and Andy on full rest for the final two games. 

We all saw the game; it was quite obvious that AJ had nothing last night. From the first curveball he threw to Rollins, you could tell that he didn't have the same touch as his did in Game 2. Sure enough, on TV, on the message boards and everywhere else, the reason for his performance was absolutely that he pitched on three days rest. Of course there were still the people that maintained starting AJ was the right move, it simply backfired; however, the other side became increasingly louder, and it was hard not to wonder if maybe they were right.

Here's what we know: sometimes, AJ does this; there's no guarantee he would have been any better on full rest; it's likely Gaudin (who has pitched 2.1 innings in all of October and November) would have been bad as well. Over at River Avenue Blues, Mike Axisa had this to say about Game 5: "AJ Burnett completely crapped the bed, which had little to do with short rest and almost everything to do with the fact that he's AJ Burnett". I could not agree more. 

Bottom line is that even with the horrible efforts of both AJ and Phil Coke, the Yankees still brought the tying run to the plate in the 9th inning. The offense scored five earned runs of Lee last night in seven innings. They have now scored 20 runs in the last three games. All is not lost! And if the thought of Pettitte on three days rest scares you, try this on for size. What if the Yankees started Gaudin last night, and he got rocked. Then what if a fully rested Burnett blows up in Game 6 like he did last night. You can say, "Well, they would have Pettitte and Sabathia for Game 7", and you would be right, but I have to say, I like the position the Yankees are in right now much more.

In closing, try to remember how crazy the Bronx will be tomorrow night. Try to remember that this is the second time the Yankees will have seen Pedro; if they were that much better against Lee last night, what do you think they'll do to Pedro? Try to remember that they have one Andrew Eugene Pettitte on the mound. You may still think that Girardi made the wrong move, but you have to believe the Yankees have still got the Phillies jugular in their sights.

Pettitte as a Hall of Famer?

I was doing my usual browsing of baseball related articles and blogs this morning. Usually this consists of River Avenue Blues, Lo Hud, ESPN.com, MLB.com, and Pinstripe Alley. However, this morning, I was wondering how the blogfather, Peter Abraham, was doing over at the Boston Globe. (For those of you who don't know who Peter is, he is the original author of the Lo Hud Yankees Blog; he moved to the Boston Globe this fall). In the sports section of the Globe, I found an interesting article by Nick Cafardo on the Hall of Fame candidacy of one Andrew Eugene Pettitte.

Pettitte is perfect example of a "borderline" Hall of Famer. He has been remarkably consistent during his career. He spent most of his career in what many say is the toughest division in baseball, and was very successful. He has also been, for the most part, an incredible clutch performer on baseball's biggest stage. He has a Major League record 17 postseason wins and could add to that total if the Phillies push the series to a sixth game.

But on the other side of all of the overwhelming positives of his career are the negatives. He has only 229 career wins. He is an admitted HGH user. Also, his 3.91 career ERA is a bit higher than the typical inductee.

Cafardo does an excellent job in his article of clearly showing both sides of the argument. He goes on to quote various baseball writers and baseball people, who are split on the issue. Some say his remarkable consistency and postseason track record are enough. Others argue that he is not a dominant pitcher, and while he has been consistent, he does not belong in the conversations with baseball's elite.

I tend to agree that Pettitte's consistency (especially in the midst of baseball's steroid age) and success in the postseason are enough to reserve a spot in Cooperstown. However, I believe Buck Martinez (from Cafardo's article) sums up the issue appropriately: "Yes, he should get in, but not before Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris". I could not agree more with this. Dandy Andy, in my mind, has been more than good enough over the years, but if Blyleven can't get in, how do you justify allowing Pettitte in?

All of this said, Andy can make this much more of a sure thing by pitching two or three more successful years. Here's hoping he's ready to make one more great postseason start if the Yankees need him in Game 6. 

MLB Umps

The umpires, as a whole, have been the brunt of a LOT of criticism this post season. From Joe Mauer's ball down the line, to the Youka being "off" the bag against the Angels, to the ball that hit Chase Utley in the box, the division series was pretty brutal from an officiating stand point. I've heard it all in terms of the solution to the problem; from robots to complete instant replay. But then, on Saturday night in the midst of an extra-inning classic, we saw something else.

Jerry Layne made the correct call on a play at second base. On a routine double play ball, Maicer Izturis flipped to shortstop Erick Aybar, who appeared to throw to first for your run-of-the-mill 4-6-3 double play. Just before I could let a few F-bombs fly and smack my hand on the couch, Layne signaled that Aybar was off the bag. When I saw the replay it wasn't even close; Aybar was at least six inches away from the bag and never even made an attempt at swiping it with his foot. Layne clearly made the right call and Scioscia jogged out to engage in the obligatory argument. I can't blame him, it was an important play and he had no way of knowing the call was correct. However, the broadcasters and numerous journalists who saw the replay I can blame.

Buck and McCarver, who I can't stand to begin with, immediately began talking about the "neighborhood" rule, implying that because Aybar was close to the bag, the runner should have been called out. I heard analysts on various networks say that they were glad the play didn't factor into the result of the game. It just didn't make sense to me how the same people can criticize umpires so belligerently when they miss a call at first that is so close you need "x-mo" (or whatever Fox wants to call it) to legitimately tell.

Layne should be lauded for not only the call, but having the fortitude to make it when many "baseball" people say Aybar was "close enough". The neighborhood rule isn't a catch all for physical errors around the second base bag. If a shortstop swipes the bag while he comes across for the throw and drags his foot off a split second before the ball hits his glove, I'm okay with calling the runner out. However, if the shortstop straddles the bag with both feet at least six inches away as Aybar did, the call should be made exactly how Layne made it.

 

An Article that really bothers me

I was scrolling through Buster Olney's blog (must be an Insider to read complete blog) on ESPN.com, as I do every morning. Towards the end of his blog each day, he lists a number of links to interesting stories by baseball writers from around the country. There's usually a few good reads in the bunch and today was no exception. I read a story about Matt LaPorta's surgeries, how one writer thinks the Jays should sign Jason Bay and an article about the Mariner's top draft pick, Dustin Ackley. Then, at the bottom of the page, I came across an article by Bud Shaw, of cleveland.com. The preview for the article on Olney's blog was, "It's hard to ignore the payroll of the Yankees', writes Bud Shaw". 

Now, I understand that as long as the Yankees spend money like they do, there will always be people that criticize them. However, my biggest pet peeve has always been the lack of intelligent thought that goes into most of these criticisms. You know what I'm talking about; the people that just bitch and moan about how "unfair" it is that the Yankees spend all the money and that the only reason they are any good this year is that they spent all that money on Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira.

This brings us back to Mr. Smith. You can read his full article here, but I'm going to pick apart some of the most ridiculous aspects of his piece:


Joe Girardi is singing high praise of his Yankees as a Three Musketeers-style ball club, purring along in the American League playoffs on dedication, selflessness and hard work.

Yep. That's them. Gutty overachievers.


So clearly this is sarcasm. How dare Girardi speak highly of his team when they just beat the poor Twins who don't have as big of a payroll? There's more...


The Yankees have managed to take everybody's eyes off their prized payroll with the recent failures to win it all and especially with last year's swing-and-miss. They've helped create the false perception that money really isn't all that, that if you play your hearts out, you, too, can hold a ticker-tape parade.

Sure you can. Except you, Pittsburgh and Kansas City and . . .


So clearly the highest payroll in the game leads to a championship every year, no questions asked. Why even bother to play the games? I've got news for you, Pittsburgh and Kansas City have more problems than just how much money they can spend. There's more...


Four of MLB's top 10 payrolls are represented in the two league championship series, with the Yankees topping the list at more than $200 million. The Minnesota Twins, victimized by all that Yankee pluck and enthusiasm in the division series, spent $65.


Those poor Twins (that's $65 million by the way). Too bad they aren't owned by a super rich family who has more money than the Steinbrenner's. Oh wait...they are? Well, maybe if the Yankees have so much money they could help out these small market teams so they can have more money to spend. Oh wait...they do (to the tune of $26.9 million luxury tax)?

(On a serious note, RIP Carl Pohlad. Though I do not agree with his reluctance to invest some of his riches into the Twins on-field product, I mean no disrespect to the late Twins owner.)

There's more...


What the Yankees' sweep really showed is that the talent gap was so great, the Twins couldn't overcome their mistakes. Think the margin for error may decrease even more when next time around they have to let either Joe Mauer or Justin Morneau go?


Maybe our friend Bud missed the baserunning clinic the Twins put on that cost them runs in Game 2 and Game 3? Or perhaps he is simply choosing to ignore that fact in favor of the ridiculous sentiment that the talent gap was far to large to have a competitive series? Although, given the fact that Minnesota led every game in the series at some point, I'm not sure I buy that. Let us also not forget that Nick Blackburn and Carl Pavano shut down the Yankee offense in their starts. It was the Twins bullpen that blew those games. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a fairly competitive series where the Yankees won (yes, because they had better players, I'm not in complete denial) because they pitched well, played good defense, got clutch hits and limited their mistakes. Poor Bud must have missed the actual games.

What if the Yankees had been the team that screwed up on the base paths? Think there would be any sympathy for them? No (and I wouldn't want any). There would be a score of articles by people like Bud saying how $200 million can't buy you the intangibles and that the Twins are a better "team". The bottom line is the Twins didn't play their best baseball. If they did, maybe they would have won at least one game. But they didn't. And I know they would be the last one's to make excuses about it.

Mr. Shaw presented no real facts or concepts in his article aside from the payroll numbers which can be googled in ten seconds. Opinion pieces are okay, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, give us a reason to share your opinion rather than reciting the same tired claims that every Yankee hater in the country has been screaming for the past decade.






Comparing the starting pitching for both teams

Much has been, and will continue to be made, about the starting pitching of the Yankees and Angels. Rightfully so as the starting pitching will most likely be the deciding factor of the series. The Yankees are coming off a great ALDS where (aside from the heroics of Alex Rodriguez), their starters were the reason they were able to sweep. The Angels are still riding high from an equally (some people believe more) impressive sweep of the Red Sox. John Lackey and Jered Weaver shut down a lifeless Boston offense in the first two games, and Kazmir kept them just close enough to win Game 3. So, the question is, who has the advantage?

The case for the Yankees begins with one Carston Charles Sabathia; he is the best starting pitcher on either team and could possibly be the single most important player in the series (with the possibility of him starting Games 1, 4, and 7). The robust left-hander is coming off 6.2 innings of 8 hit, 2 run (1 earned) playoff baseball. He struck out 8 and walked none is his handling of the Twins. I say handling because he was good, but by no means great. He did not command the strike zone well with his fastball and had to rely heavily on his devastating slider. To me, this makes what he did all the more impressive. The true test of a starting pitcher is what they can do on a night where everything isn't right; the first game of the ALDS proved to Yankee fans what they already know: CC is a bona fide ace who can win a game without his best stuff. This is the kind of guy you want to lean on in a grueling seven game series.

The other two starters, AJ Burnett and Andy Pettitte, have been the subject of a fair amount of skepticism. Although CC had his postseason ghosts, the way he had been pitching really negated the question. However, AJ went through an awful stretch in August that raised many questions about the state of the Yankees pitching. Andy Pettitte hit a slight road bump with a tired shoulder, which prompted the obligatory, "Is he healthy," questions. After watching the ALDS, I think much of the negativity surrounding these two has dissolved. Burnett went 6 innings giving up 3 hits, 1 run and striking out 6 while walking 5. Pettitte went 6 and a third giving up 1 run on 3 hits with 7 K's and 1 walk. 

To me, the only questions about the Yankee starters are as follows: will the walks the Burnett is bound to hand out haunt the Yankees more against the Angels than they did against the Twins (I tend to think yes), and will they decide to screw the 4th starter and just go with their three best (I think yes again, it's that time of year folks).

The Angels top two starters, Lackey and Weaver, impressed more with their ALDS performances, some say, because of who they did it against: the mighty Red Sox. The Sox were coming off, arguably, their best offensive month (Sept./Oct.) as a team, hitting 43 home runs, finishing with their highest batting average in any month (.286) and a season high in total bases (493). So it wasn't that they were limping to the finish line, but the Sox sure seemed lifeless against the Angels. Sure, there is credit to be given to the Halos, but I think there's more to this.

The first two games of the ALDS were of course played in Anaheim. The 2009 Red Sox finished 39-42 on the road, meaning they were the only playoff team without a winning record on the road. While they had an OPS of .806 in the regular season, good for second in the league behind the Yankees, their road OPS was a mere .753, similar to the season number for the Indians and the Marlins. The Red Sox are not the same team on the road. I do not think it is a coincidence that when the series came back to Fenway, the Sox finally showed some life on offense. While Lackey and Weaver certainly pitched well and Kazmir struggled, I think the Home vs. Road splits reared their ugly heads in that series.

So yes, I'm spinning this to make the Angels look less impressive than the Yankees even though the Yankees pitched to the wet noodles (minus Sir Mauer) bats of the Twins. Although I just took a stab at the Twins offense, they put together good at-bats, worked counts and came up with quite a few timely hits. I blame their offensive futility more on the bad baserunning than the lack of hitting. Bottom line is that both teams will be pitching to better offenses this series than in the ALDS, and that's how it is supposed to be.

I give the edge to the Yankees because I'll take best stuff any day. There are no doubts that CC has better stuff than Lackey, and that AJ has better stuff than Weaver. Lets be honest about that. Call the third game a toss up if you'd like, but who would you take in that game? The guy tied for the All-Time lead in postseason wins? Or Kazmir, who may have better stuff at this point in both of their careers? I take Pettitte 100 times out of 100. 

I'm really looking forward to this series as it should be excellent baseball played by, in my opinion, the two best teams in baseball.


Thinking about the Angels offense

The New York Yankees, owner of the Major League's best record, and victor (by sweep) of the ALDS over the Minnesota Twins, are about to collide head on with the cream of the AL West crop, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (I think I got it all). There is no doubt that this is a marquee matchup, one which could only be usurped by a Yankees vs. Red Sox showdown. 

By record, they were the top two teams in baseball; the Yankees finishing the regular season at 103 up and 59 down and the Angels at 97-65. They were also, arguably, the top two offensive teams in the baseball. We all know about the Yankees offense, which is a ferocious combination of patience and power. But let's take a closer look at the Angels attack.

The Angels can hit; they led the Major's in batting average at a .285 clip and tied with the Yankees for the lead in hits at 1604. They also came in right behind the Yankees in runs scored at 883 as well as RBI at 841. The Angels do it a little differently than the Yankees, stealing 148 bases, good for second behind the Rays, and finishing near the middle of the pack in home runs. Bottom line is that they can score.

There are however some myths with this Los Angeles team that need to be addressed. The biggest one being that they don't strike out. In reality, the Angels are middle of the pack in strikeouts. They struck out more than the Yankees on the year and they certainly are not the most patient team in the world, finishing, again, in the middle of the pack in walks taken. So, do not be fooled into thinking that this is a team who takes pitches, avoids strikeouts, and does anything to get on base. The Angels are a free swinging team who rely on and the Major League's highest batting average on balls in play (BAIBP) at .326. This number means that when the Angels hit the ball in play, it resulted in a hit just over 32 percent of the time. While the lineup is certainly made up of good hitters, this number does suggest that luck was on their side more often than any other team in baseball.

The other myth that I want to address is that the Angels are an ultra-fast team that runs at will. Two players accounted for 48 percent of their total stolen bases; Chone Figgins with 42 and Bobby Abreu with 30. Now they do have four other players who stole ten or more bases, but the bottom line is that Figgins and Abreu are the real threats. This is not a team of players that cannot be thrown out. They were successful in stolen base attempts only 70 percent of the time, good for 21st in the bigs. The Angels score runs with their speed by being aggressive going from 1st to 3rd and getting down the line, not by stealing teams to death.

The fact is that the Angels are not as old-school and "small ball" as people like to think. They can certainly do the little things, but they were an offensive force because Kendry Morales spent 2009 hitting the ball out of the park, Torri Hunter enjoyed an excellent year and Abreu set a new tone of getting a good pitch to hit for the entire offense. And although Vladimir Guerrero is aging, when healthy he's still dangerous, just ask Jonathon Papelbon.

So expect a difference in how these teams score runs, but not as big a difference as some people would like you to believe.