User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 1.1763 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
You can hold your head high Mr. Torre, overall you did a heck of a job, and screw the critics.
In all seriousness: If I were Joe Torre, I would resign right now, like at one o'clock this afternoon, and hold the most hostile press conference since Mark Antony invented the press conference in the first century BC.
He would be never able to work in baseball again. Of course, the giant F!@# you is often worth it.
(Managers don't have to wait the 5 years, right?)
Steinbrenner seemed pretty intent on keeping A-Rod according to that article. Probably a bigger story actually than his putting Torre on notice. Especially considering last year Steinbrenner told Bill Madden that he was going to fire Torre and then changes his mind.
Yeah, heckuva job,
BrownieTorre.Torre keeps signing contracts to work for the Yankees and those contracts pay him far more than any other manager in the game. They also provide him with far more talent than any other manager has. Certainly he must know that he's going to be held to a far higher standard than any other manager.
But here he was at the end of the season saying (paraphrasing) "I think it was a great accomplishment that we came back and made the playoffs, regardless of what happens from here." I can certainly see where that sentiment came from, but it's not what I'd want to be hearing from my manager if I were signing those big checks.
As far as how Steinbrenner is handling this, it's a little surprising, but only because he has been so uncharacteristically reasonable sine the 2004 loss. The 4 championships bought Torre a lot of rope but he had to know that eventually Steinbrenner would lose patience if they kept going out early in the playoffs.
I believe this is the first interview Steinbrenner has given since his infamous "Cashman's on a big hook" line when he talked to Pat Milton in spring. That's pretty noteworthy.
You can hold your head high Mr. Torre, overall you did a heck of a job, and screw the critics.
My take exactly. It wasn't Torre who slipped those two aces into the Cleveland rotation.
And Darren's welcome to say what he wants. I hope he accepts my comments on the state of the Red Sox in the same spirit, which I'm sure he will.
Andy, you sound like the homophobe who's mad that people aren't open-minded enough to accept him the way he is.
No, Howard Rubenstein released a statement from the Boss for that.
No, no...this can't happen! Torre HAS to come back next year so he can tie Ralph Houk for the longest stretch of a Yankee manager to NOT win a World Series...8-years.
Count Da Yearsssssssss!
Andy, you sound like the homophobe who's mad that people aren't open-minded enough to accept him the way he is.
I'll let your projectionist deal with that one. Judging by the tone of your comments, I think you take this stuff a lot more seriously than I do, but then I suppose that's what make your fandom so much purer.
I'm sure his rings would keep him warm at night.
There is a considerable contingent of Angels fans who (I am being perfectly serious here) recall him fondly as a broadcaster. I would have no doubt in my mind at all that he would be welcomed back to the organization in that capacity, especially considering the experimentation the team has had this year in the booth.
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1
Horsecrap. I see very little evidence (and saw before this series) that the Yankees are better than the Indians. I thought they had a great chance to win the series (and now I don't), but I was particularly angry at the advance excuse-making and blatant homerism that Sterling had the gall to say on the radio.
Torre has done a good job overall. But he is the one who batted Rodriguez 8th last year, sold him out in SI, and used Ross Ohlendorf as the first man out of the pen in a winnable game 1 this year. I will wish Joe Torre a hearty thank you, and a fond farewell.
Yeah, I had him at #2. With the team off to a horrible start earlier this year and the pressure heating up, he kept his cool, trusted his roster and the team took off and was by far the best team in baseball down the stretch. A lot of managers - even a lot of good ones - would've succumed to the pressure and made moves just to makes moves (much like Torre himself did in last year's ALDS actually). Sometimes the most impressive thing a manager can do is have the guts not to do anything impressive.
(Managers don't have to wait the 5 years, right?)
If you're older than 65, the 5-year rule is waived.
But you still need the VC to vote you in.
What makes you think I take it so seriously? I called you a fraud who poops in your pants--anyone who says 'poops' can't be all that serious. You're the one who's telling others they're not real fans and then feeling persecuted when people disagree with you.
Your anger.
LMFAO! Well done, Keith.
FWIW, I think "poops your pants" is much more whimsical than "poops in your pants".
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1
Are you giving those odds?
I'll bet you a 1/100,000th of a penny that it does happen!
That's ok...As the Yankees were going down in flames...Sterling was STILL talking about playing the Red Sox in the finals.
I'm not stunned, but I'm honestly surprised. I believe that the thing that makes the Indians so special is the "two aces" phenomenon. The surprise for me is that Sabathia got hit pretty hard and the Indians still won easily. I always expect a possible Carmona-like performance any day in this game, which is what makes the spectre of needing to win three in a row even less likely.
Torre's 67 years old, not in the best of health, and has had the fortune of managing the best collection of talent in baseball the past decade or so, which he would surely never get to do elsewhere. I think it's highly unlikely he works again in baseball after leaving the Yankees, no matter what the terms are.
Yup. But so could Clemens and Mussina. Honestly, with the track records of those four pitchers, I would speculate that either Clemens or Mussina is somewhat more likely to have shutdown stuff on a given day than Westbrook or Byrd. But this is where the 2-0 comes into play. The Indians obviously don't need all of Westbrook, Byrd, and Sabathia to pitch like gods in order to win the series. But the Yankees need Clemens, Mussina, and Wang to pitch very well in order for the Yankees to win.
Many Yankee haters already refer to this as the "Indians/Dbags" series.
If only the Rockies still had Jose Mesa and the Indians still had Omar Vizquel!
Wedge says Byrd starts game 4 if necessary. Doesn't like the "risk" of starting anybody on short rest.
Laughable? this has been 2 games. They played 6 this year, Yanks won all 6.
Over 162 games, the Indians won three more games. If they Yankees had the good fortune of playing a few more games in the AL Central, they would have won more games.
The Indians are a very good team, I think the Yankees are a better team. But, as we all know, the best team doesn't always win.
You also thought ####### your boss was a good idea.
Then why were AL Central teams 85-101 against AL East teams this year?
If they had traded with KC or Chicago, they would have lost more games.
Last year the Central was 20 games better.
Why do people think the East is so good?
Why do people think the East is so good?
I am saying the Yankees went 30-11 against those teams, does it not stand to reason that if they had, say, a series against more games against these teams, they would have won a few more games? Even if you give three games against the Indians they will have lost this week?
It's like saying "Shelton hit .500 in April with a million HRs so doesn't stand to read that if he has say another several months against more games he would hit .500 with more HRs?"
And this is the way he acts when things are going his way. Imagine what we have to look forward to if the tribe stumbles.
Last year the Central was 20 games better.
And this is relevant because?
Why do people think the East is so good?
I didn't hear anybody say anything about being "so good," but I did notice this:
AL Central teams 85-101 against AL East teams this year
Because the Central beat the West which beat the East which beat the Central.
All of them won their interleague schedules.
Aren't you making the Illinois tied Colorado which won the national championship, so Illinois is co-champion! argument?
Because I was under the ridiculous impression that there are a contingent of people who think the East is better in almost any given year.
But I'm sure if we check the history, we'll find no one saying something so crazy in 2005, 2006, or 2007.
(In 2005, the East was 11 games stronger--all KC, and Chicago was 4 full games up on the East leader.)
Yeah, there is no backstory or history between SJ and myself that predates and qualifies my statement.
Which provides utterly no evidence for the assertion that, "The AL Central was way tougher than the AL East this year. Not even close." Nor is it an answer to the question.
And I'm not going to the other extreme and using gambler's fallacy to say that "They played above their ability so they would lose a ton a games to get back to even" cause that's false.
All I'd argue, is that they'd probably win somewhere between -3 to +5 games if the schedule was changed.
And that's ignoring the fact that I would guess that the reason they played better against the Central was because they played the Central during the periods they were the best team in baseball, not the periods they totally sucked. I normally wouldn't even bring that up, but the Yankees were a pretty extreme case this year.
But SJ himself was confused and offput in #55. And I'd assume that he is aware of the backstory.
But in a larger sense, if one team has a better record by one or two games over the 162, does that really tell us "better" or "worse"?
I would tend to group two teams within about ten games of each other record-wise as "about the same" as far as quality.
But I'm sure if we check the history, we'll find no one saying something so crazy in 2005, 2006, or 2007.
And this is relevant because?
Seriously, why not take your complaint to that "contingent"?
Yeah, there is no backstory or history between SJ and myself that predates and qualifies my statement.
OK, so why don't you guys just go off to some dark alley and kick the crap out of each other?
Don't be a dick. I wasn't defending the initial assertion. You asked a question and I answered it thoughtfully. If you are not intentionally trying to be a dick, I can clarify:
"They had that record this year because all of the divisions were about even and they happened to shake out so that each division won most of the games with one division and lost most of them with another."
I would agree that the East was likely a little bit stronger this year. But you asked a question and I answered it.
#### that, he has 2 inches and about 40 pounds on me.
Co-sign.
Your story seems to check out. Especially if Sabathia never pitched.
But I'm sorry. You are completely right that that comment, which is relevant in several ways was more out of place than all of the completely inflammatory and off-topic posts that you ignore in any given day.
Wait, so you are using a small sample size argument in a thread where you are declaring 2 games to be a sample large enough to prove the Indians are better?
You'd guess wrong. The Yankees swept the Indians and took two out of three against Minnesota in April, when they were stinking out the joint against everybody else to the tune of a 4-13 record against Baltimore, Boston, Oakland and Tampa Bay. The Yankees also lost three out of four to the Tigers in late August, when the Bronx Bombers were looking like a juggernaut. This is silly, but you started it.
Jeez, are tempers a little short in this thread, or what?
Sorry, I didn't read carefully and thought you were Bernal, the guy who made the assertion and thus the guy to whom I was asking the question.
"They had that record this year because all of the divisions were about even and they happened to shake out so that each division won most of the games with one division and lost most of them with another."
I concur with that.
Speaking as a Yankee fan, I agree with the sentiment, but that's no consolation unless they wind up beating them 9 and 2 for the season. 8 and 3 doesn't get there. That "random" stuff may be true, but let the winners or the whiners say that. If the Indians win that third game, they're the better team as far as I'm concerned.
The concept of statistical significance isn't "stuff" that may be true. It's the universally accepted fundamental principle of understanding quantitative results, in every realm, within and beyond sports.
Apology accepted. I apologize for my dickish response :P.
The Yankees have the edge in Pythagorean Standings and a 6-2 edge, head-to-head. The Indians have a 98-94 edge in real-life wins and losses (including the playoffs) and are a game away from ending New York's season. It's tough for me to see how the Yankees are demonstrably better.
I don't follow the Yankees closely enough to really know if firing Torre's a good idea. But to fire a guy for losing a roughly evenly-matched series against a team with two of the best starting pitchers in baseball, that seems a bit harsh to me.
You have a long baseball watching history, do you think the 60 Pirates were better than the 60 Yankees?*
*not that these two teams resemble the 60 World Series at all, just picking the most extreme example.
No, isn't the only thing that really matters in the end. It is insofar as the winner of that World Series, of course. But it's perfectly all right to understand that there are plenty of additional ways in which to assess the value of the performance of teams. In fact I'd say it's more than all right; it's far more rational than being limited to the single lens of post-season results.
It is perfectly fine to understand that there are plenty of additional ways in which to assess the value of the performance of teams besides wins. But the idea is to win. It is by definition what matters in the end. Not to have a better run differential over the season or in a short series. Thinking run differential matters in any way beyond winning individual games is far from rational. It is quite frankly stupid.
do allow me the fun of being dickish or ballsy/sacking up (even if it itches) and say that when it comes to the WS, better is who wins more games because that is the ONLY thing that is being measured
now sure you can go assessing all the values of OTHER things, but it doesn't really determind who actually won or lost the WS
The concept of statistical significance isn't "stuff" that may be true. It's the universally accepted fundamental principle of understanding quantitative results, in every realm, within and beyond sports.
Steve, you really should know by now that I know this. My opinion here is not based on mathematics, nor are most opinions of any type.
You have a long baseball watching history, do you think the 60 Pirates were better than the 60 Yankees?*
*not that these two teams resemble the 60 World Series at all, just picking the most extreme example.
The irony of this is that it only seems to be such an extreme example because of 3 games in a 7 game World Series.
But during the regular season, the Yankees won 8 by games and were tied with two weeks to go. The Pirates, playing in a much better league, were never really threatened in the stretch and won by 7 games.
So yes, I think that it's entirely plausible to say that the Pirates may well have been a better team than the Yankees, those 3 lopsided World Series games notwithstanding. The Pirates had marginally better pitching to offset the Yanks' marginally better hitting, and they played in the superior league.
I don't follow the Yankees closely enough to really know if firing Torre's a good idea. But to fire a guy for losing a roughly evenly-matched series against a team with two of the best starting pitchers in baseball, that seems a bit harsh to me.
It would be both senseless and classless.
No, it quite frankly isn't. Dismissing the value of keeping track of each teams' R/OR for any number of analytic purposes is.
What do you get out of the analysis? It sure doesn't seem to have anything to do with real life results like those produced by the '60 Pirates or the '07 Diamondbacks.
Well, Andy, I'd be a lot better persuaded that you do indeed know it if you would occasionally do something more than grudgingly, half-heartedly allow that it's "stuff" that "may be true." ;-)
Do you seriously reject the insight and utility offered by the Pythagorean principle?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main