Phil Allard Responds

When we last posted here at TheYankeesBlog.com, we took Phil Allard to task for a column in his blog which criticized another fan for thoughts on Derek Jeter. Allard apparently caught wind of this blog post and took the time to e-mail me.

Hi John,

Phil Allard here. I read your commentary about my Jeter comments on the NYYFAN blog and you’re right.

My post has to do with a previous agrument, and that is not clear if the post is read in isolation. I apologize for that.

It’s truly impossible to objectify Jeter; he is a deity.

I do believe you took my 2006 article out of context, but so be it. The Jeter argument will continue.

And YOU continue your good work.

- phil

In light of this clarification, Allard’s column does make more sense. At any rate, I think it shows a lot about Phil’s character that he could write me and civilly discuss a post where I was so critical. I’m not really sure where I took the words he wrote in 2006 out of context, but I definitely owe him an apology for implying he might root for the New England Patriots. That was totally out of line. Nobody deserves the insult of being compared to a Pats fan, even if he does not believe in the godliness of The Great Jeter.

Allard Takes Hatchet to Fans

I try and read as much as I can about the Yankees on the internet. A lot of my reading comes from straight news sites. This gives me the information I need to make posts here. I also read a lot of blogs, message boards, and other sites of fan commentary. These open new ways of thinking and insights which might never occur to me on my own. In addition seeing how knowledgeable the competition is motivates me to elevate my game and learn so that my analysis will be on the same intellectual level. Many times I will disagree with my fellow fans on certain issues, but I certainly respect and understand their perspective. Unlike professional media writers, whom I believe are fair game for criticism, fans exercise their craft for the love of the team and the game. There is no ulterior motive or agenda. As long as something is well thought out, I will not attack.

This brings me to a piece written today by Phil Allard on his blog at nyyfans.com. Allard absolutely rips to pieces the work of another fan. American history is one of my passions just like baseball is. Allard correctly takes the writer to task for a strained analogy. The thought that 2008 Spring Training is as critical to Derek Jeter’s career as Inchon was to Douglas MacArthur is silly. Jeter is not up against the same odds, and his legacy will be in tact no matter what. Still the point the writer makes is a good one. The Yankees just replaced a manager who was very popular within the clubhouse. They replaced him with a gruff character many believe will clash with veteran players. Seeing their captain get behind the new manager and falling in line probably would set an example for a lot of veterans and make them more willing to tolerate Girardi’s taskmaster demeanor.

Allard seems to be furious over this assertion. There would be no other reason to make the title of his article “Growth of Jeter fan boy militia getting dangerous.” The bizarre thing is that while railing against the author, Allard does not argue the substance of his argument. Instead, he gets sidetracked into a rant on Derek’s defense.

Most Yankee fans with a functioning brain understand that Jeter is a poor defensive shortstop. This has been objectively proven time-after-time with statistical data that I won’t repeat here. The man has no range on grounders. Yes, he is good at pop-ups, but a shortstop’s main responsibility is ground balls.

This is baffling on so many levels. The original author made absolutely no comment on Jeter’s defense. It has nothing to do with the substance of the article or the intelligence of the author he is allegedly trying to refute. Why he feels the need to rail on Derek Jeter’s defense I do not know. I could try and refute his opinion stated as fact by pointing out how flawed defensive statistics are. Most of them are so inconclusive that even their supporters say a fair sample size of data takes at least 3 seasons to compile to even form a relevant interpretation. However, Allard’s own words in a 2006 article seem to contradict his angry blustering.

Baseball stat freaks, or sabermetricans, point to the Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR), one of the systems that measure a fielder’s range. Jeter ranks near the bottom of the pile, at -8 below league average. A weighted analysis by the venerable TangoTiger even rates Jeter as the very worst of all Major League Shortstops for range factor over the past three seasons.

As much as I believe in most forms of objective sabermetric philosophy, such as the all important OBP and the shunning of “productive outs,” I have to disagree here. Yes, Jeter does not have great range, but he adds dimensions of worth to his team that defies quantitative analysis, and there ain’t no stat geek that can tell me otherwise. I can’t let statistical “objectivity” act as a blinding agent to what my eyes can clearly see. (That sound you hear is members of the saber community firing up their keyboards to take pithy shots at me.)

You remember that catch Jeter made against the Red Sox on that glorious first night of July in 2004, when he risked his body by crashing in the stands to save the game? That doesn’t count in sabermetric measurement because it was a foul ball. Remember “The Play” against Oakland in the 2001 playoffs that saved the series for the Yanks when Jeter intuitively ran to a spot where he had no business being and then made the perfect cut-off throw home? Aside from the assist, there is no quantitative measurement of such a play, nor are there useful measurements for his amazing skills as a cut-off man.

Jeter’s value is truly intangible, and he inspires teammates with his leadership. He belongs at shortstop on my team, but let the arguments rage on. The debates are fun.

Allard says that anybody with a brain knows that Jeter’s defense is lousy and that all we need to know this is statistical data. Does this mean that he did not have a brain in 2006? Is Allard really part of this “dangerous militia” he decries? What has changed between now and then that has moved Jeter from good shortstop to a player only somebody without a brain could defend? His rant continues.

It continues to amaze me that these same members of the delusional Jeter fan boy militia also think that Jeter is a “clutch” hitter.

Jeter usually hits well in the post-season because he is a good hitter, not because he dons some sort of super-human apparel.

Kobe Bryant makes a lot of big shots because he is a good basketball player, not because he dons some sort of super-human apparel. Both he and Jeter have come through in huge situations a lot in the past. I have never heard anybody being accused of founding a “fan boy militia” for suggesting Kobe is clutch. What exactly is Allard’s problem with those who brag about their favorite player’s ability to come through in big spots?

As far as his leadership skills, ask A-Rod.

A-Rod is “proud to be his teammate.” That is an endorsement of leadership abilities where I come from.

Phil Allard’s rant is downright bizarre. He criticizes a fan for claims he did not make and then rips fans who speak about Derek Jeter in terms that are too glowing. This was really mean-spirited stuff. Maybe we fans go overboard in our praise of certain players, but is that not part of being a fan? We try to frame our guys as elite, conquering heroes and the opposition as overrated villains. If Allard roots for the New England Patriots, I guess we are not far away from complaints over fans showing Tom Brady too much love.

This was really just an awful article. He venting on another writer without arguing a bit of the substance of what the guy actually wrote. He stuck words in his mouth and then complained that too many fans are blind to the perceived flaws of a Hall of Fame level player who has helped bring four titles to New York. My guess is that just about every fanbase is guilty of overloving their best players.

Feature on Girardi

With the rest of the baseball media fixated on Roger Clemens, The New York Times produced an interesting writeup on Joe Girardi and his relationship with his ailing father. He seems completely sure of himself, which is a good thing. Joe Torre was a legend, and there were still knee-jerk reactionists who wanted to run him out of town anytime anything went wrong. These vultures will be very impatient with an inexperienced skipper. This job is not for the thin-skinned.

TPA’s Top Yankees Prospects

As you may have noticed, posts will be sporadic over the holiday season. A reader named Ben asked me to pass along his prospect rankings a few days ago. He has rated his top ten Yankees prospects at topprospectalert.com. In one of the most unshocking conclusions of all-time, Joba Chamberlain is the top prospect in the system.

O’Connor: George Knew Best on Ortiz

Ian O’Connor of the Bergen Record argues that George Steinbrenner knew better than Brian Cashman when the owner suggested signing David Ortiz prior to the 2003 season.

George Steinbrenner told Brian Cashman to get David Ortiz. You can rattle off all of Steinbrenner’s bad ideas, rewind Ortiz’s middling career in Minnesota and recall that the Yankees had no need for another lumbering lefty in a lineup already suffering a dearth of athleticism and speed.

But none of that deletes this ice-cold truth: Steinbrenner saw something in Ortiz that Cashman did not.

In hindsight, one can easily make this claim. With the benefit of it, we now know that Giambi would turn from arguably the most lethal hitter in the American League into an oft-injured albatross at his salary. We now know that superprospect, Nick Johnson, was traded for Javier Vazquez before the 2004 season. We now know that Ortiz would transform from decent hitter into superstar. The problem is that we knew none of these back then. There was no indication that any of these would happen back then. The Yankees were set at first base and designated hitter at the time. George’s obsession with Ortiz was most likely that Boston would sign him. Give the Red Sox credit for seeing something in Ortiz’s swing that they could utilize with the Green Monster. Blaming the Yankees for not signing a first baseman at a time when they already had a pair of really good ones is silly. One can only do it with the benefit of hindsight.

O’Connor was the reporter whom Steinbrenner talked to during the ALDS, revealing Joe Torre’s job was on the line in the series. He is becoming nothing more than a mouthpiece for ownership, not an objective journalist.

King: A-Rod’s Decision Impacted by Hire

George King reports that Alex Rodriguez could be swayed to either leave or stay in New York depending on who the Yankees hire as their new manager.

With the Yankees making plans to meet with Rodriguez and agent Scott Boras, Steinbrenner was asked if the session would take place before a manager was hired.

“It has nothing to do with the manager being named. I don’t think that’s important,” Steinbrenner said.

It might be more important than Steinbrenner believes. Rodriguez developed a strong relationship with Don Mattingly when he was the hitting coach and is very close to first-base coach Tony Pena. It’s not known how Rodriguez feels about Joe Girardi, who was the Yankees’ bench coach in 2005, Rodriguez’s second Yankee season.

It seems like King had a deadline to meet so he just came up with something on the spot. His hypothesis is based on a bunch of guesses he has made, not any information from reliable sources. Does George seriously believe that A-Rod’s status will have do do with anything other than money? This is the guy who went to a horrible Texas team because they were the only team willing to fulfill his demand of doubling Kevin Garnett’s record contract for American professional sports. This is the guy about to forsake $27 million over the next 3 years after making over $130 million in his career because he thinks he can make more. If the Yankees offer more than anybody else, Alex will stay. If they do not, he will leave. It is that simple. Like many athletes, A-Rod has proven that he is more loyal to dollar signs than anything else.

Sloppy Reporting

Murray Chass of the New York Times criticizes Joe Torre for perceived hypocrisy, although his reasoning is slipshod at best.

In his interview with Costas, Torre expanded his views of the incentives.

“I don’t think incentives are necessary,” he said. “I’ve never needed to be motivated. Plus, in my contract, I get a million-dollar bonus if we do win the World Series. So that’s always been there. And, you know, as far as needing incentive to go ahead and win a ballgame, that I thought, I used the term insulting.”

Torre referred to a $1 million bonus for winning the World Series. He indeed had that in his last two contracts, which covered the last six years of his employment. In the 2002-4 contract, he was able to earn $200,000 for winning the division series, $300,000 for winning the league championship series and $500,000 for winning the World Series.

The 2005-7 contract eliminated the division series bonus but provided $400,000 for winning the league championship series and $600,000 for winning the World Series, the bonuses still adding to a maximum $1 million.

Obviously Torre did not object to those bonuses, did not reject them as insulting. He signed those contracts and readily accepted the incentives they offered. Even though the Yankees didn’t win the World Series in those six years, Torre earned $700,000 of a possible $3 million in the first contract but nothing in the second because the Yankees lost the division series each year.

Torre’s objection was that this time the Yankees told him that the incentives were to motivate them. In the past, they had been rewards for a job well done. Randy Levine even stated that this contract was a change to a performance-based model to motivate Joe. The incentives themselves were not what insulted Torre. It was the way in which they were presented.

We also don’t know why he was willing to discuss a one-year contract last spring but not accept one year now.

Yes, Torre was prepared to sign a one-year extension.

Torre went to Steve Swindal, who was then a general partner and a George Steinbrenner son-in-law in good standing, and General Manager Brian Cashman and told them he would like to manage the Yankees in the last year at Yankee Stadium.

Swindal, who had negotiated Torre’s existing $20.9 million contract ($6.7 million, $6.7 million, $7.5 million), said that idea was fine with him but would require Torre to take a pay cut. They were talking about a $4.5 million salary, apparently with no insulting incentives.

Joe has said that he did not want the stress of a lame duck year. That was the main reason he had an issue with a one year offer. Had he signed the deal he was negotiating with Swindal, he would have provided himself with more job security, taking away his lame duck status from the next season, 2007. The contract the Yankees offered last week would have given him a lame duck year in the next season, 2008.

Chass really did not think this article through. His points are only congent on the surface. They do not hold up to any analysis remotely in depth. He is normally a good writer, but he really laid an egg here.

Levine: Everybody’s Out to Get Me

Richard Sandomir of the New York Times writes that Randy Levine feels his biggest critics of his handling of the Joe Torre situation have scores to settle with him.

Case No. 1: Mike Francesa and Chris Russo. Levine said that the radio team at WFAN lit him up as the Yankees’ executive most responsible for offering Torre the contract he rejected, but that Francesa and Russo did not disclose that Levine has, in his role on the YES board, questioned the value of simulcasting their daily program on YES.

Case No. 2: Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated. Verducci wrote in a column on SI.com last week that under Levine, “the Yankees let corporate cowardice be their guide” and that “there is blood everywhere on Levine and the boys” over the handling of the Torre contract.

Levine questioned Verducci’s objectivity because he collaborated on Torre’s 1997 autobiography, “Chasing the Dream.” “They had a financial relationship,” Levine said.

Case No. 3: John Kruk of ESPN. Levine said that Kruk, an analyst on “Baseball Tonight,” singled him out Thursday for leading Torre to the exit — and that General Manager Brian Cashman did not agree with the move — but failed to mention that he and Torre share the same agent, Maury Gostfrand.

This guy is just amazing. There apparently can be no objective criticism of him. His critics go well beyong these four men, though. He has only provided circumstantial evidence at best that these opinions were less than genuine. Levine is doing what he does best, spinning to cover his own rear end.

The Backlash

The Yankees clearly thought they had pulled a fast one on everybody by their treatment of Joe Torre. They were wrong. The media is not about to let Randy Levine and the Steinbrenner boys off the hook. Offering a man of grace and dignity who also has done a phenomenal job no job security does not fit any category of acceptable terms. Here is a sample of scathing articles written about the Yankees, mostly accurate.

SI.com

Tom Verducci 

Newsday 

Wallace Matthews 

Shaun Powell 

Johnette Howard 

New York Times

Selena Roberts

Jack Curry 

Newark Star-Ledger 

Dan Graziano 

Hartford Courant

Jeff Jacobs 

Bergen Record

Ian O’Connor 

Bob Klapisch 

Staten Island Advance 

Jay Price

MSNBC.com 

Mike Celizic 

Chicago Tribune

Phil Rogers 

Vaccaro: Not Just Money

Mike Vaccaro of the New York Post wrote a great article in which he chides anybody claiming the Yankees’ impressive run is only about the amount of money they spend.

Here’s something for you: In 2007, 12 teams built rosters with payrolls richer than $90 million. Here are eight of those teams: the Mets, White Sox, Dodgers, Mariners, Tigers, Orioles, Cardinals and Giants. Would you like to know what those eight teams have in common? Of course, you already know: They are choosing between Titleist and Top Flite right now.

Money helps. Money is a wonderful asset. But money is not a magic elixir. The Mets spent $115 million, the White Sox and Dodgers $108 million, the Mariners $106 million. How’d that work out for them? The Rockies spent $54 million, the Diamondbacks $52 million. How’s that work out for them?

Vaccaro’s words are going to fall upon deaf ears to irrational haters of this team, but they could not be more true. Some people will not believe that this team is about more than money, despite all of the evidence. The fact that the team with the highest payroll in the National League missed the postseason this year is irrelevant. The fact that the team with the second highest payroll in baseball last year was out of contention by the end of August does not matter. They will correctly claim that the Yankees spend more than those teams, while ignoring that back when the Yanks won championships, their payroll was much more in line with the rest of baseball than Boston’s was in 2004. The fact that homegrown talent like Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Hughes, Chamberlain, Duncan, Kennedy, and Cabrera helped propel this team back into October means nothing. Pointing to an enormous payroll allows the hater to not give the franchise any credit, no matter how contrary such a view is to fact.