How To Alienate Players And Look Bad Doing It

Yes, a bonus post today. ...

You know under Joe Torre, this would never have happened.

After declaring Brian Bruney his eighth-inning guy Tuesday, Joe Girardi apparently had a change of heart just three days later, removing Bruney from the role.

For the second consecutive game in which the Yankees have had a tight lead in the eighth, Girardi bypassed Bruney, electing to use Phil Coke and Phil Hughes in the Yankees' 4-2 victory over the Blue Jays Friday.

Wednesday Girardi used Alfredo Aceves and Phil Coke to bridge the game to Mariano Rivera, but it was assumed that was because Bruney had thrown a lot of pitches in blowing a two-run lead the night before.

Turns out there was more to it than that.

"We need to get [Bruney] going and we need to get him right and we'll get him right,'' Girardi said, "but Hughes is throwing the ball real well right now.''

Too bad Girardi didn't say that Tuesday.

Look, this is not about whether Bruney should be the eighth-inning guy, or Hughes, or whomever.

Burney has not pitched well since coming off the DL and is no position to complain about the move (and publicly he isn't). Hughes has been brilliant (so far) since moving to the bullpen, though 13-2/3 innings is still a small sample, so it's worth trying him as the bridge to Mo for the short-term.

This is about the way Girardi handles players and gives information to the media.

For 14 years Torre was the master of handling the New York media, while managing the egos of the 25 players on the roster. Rarely did we ever hear Torre making definitive statements about players' roles, especially right after games.

You know what Torre would have said Tuesday. You just know it would have sounded something like this:

Brian Bruney is an important part of this team and we need him to pitch well in the eighth. He hasn't pitched well since coming of the DL and we need to get him going, and we will. Fortunately we have Hughes and Coke and Aceves all throwing the ball well, which will help us get by until Bruney gets straighted out.

Nothing definitive. No public assigning of roles and then taking it away. No embarrassing players. No looking indecisive or looking like you don't know what you're doing.

Under Torre, this situation would have been a small note in all the beat writers' notebook. Under Girardi, it's getting headlines.

Girardi is fortunate the Bruney is a veteran and a pro.

Otherwise this could have become a real clubhouse mess.

And One More Thing...
Was it really necessary to use Coke and Hughes Friday?

Coke is more than just a left-handed specialist. He's shown he can get righthanders out, too.

With left-handed hitter Adam Lind leading off the eighth, Girardi brought in Coke. Coke got Lind to fly to left and Girardi then brought in Hughes, who finished the inning, allowing a single Scott Rolen.

But with another left-handed hitter, Lyle Overbay, due up third in the inning, why not just let Coke stay in? Like Hughes, Coke has been on a roll lately, allowing one run on five hits, while striking out 15 over his last 13-2/3 innings.

Here's the point: relievers can't pitch every day. They need days off. They need to rest. When you don't have to use multiple guys to get through an inning, then don't. Use one and keep the other guy fresh for the next day's game.

Friday Girardi should have used Coke or Hughes in the eighth, not both.

John Sterling? More Like Gilded

I'm going to take advantage of Friday's rainout to finally vent about something that's been bugging more for a long, long time.

I've had enough of John Sterling. It's time for him to go.

Now, as a member of the media myself, I tend to be cautious about criticising other media members. I understand the job and all that it entails. It's very easy to screw up and I've made more than my fair share.

But this just has gone too far.

Sterling is in his 21st season with the Yankees, and for a time he was pretty good. But not anymore.

He still has a great voice and he's still very entertaining in the big moment, but that's all he's got.

He's become a caricature of himself, constantly searching for the theatrical moment, often to the detriment of the audience.

Ever try to listen to Yankees game on the radio? It's damn near impossible.

The first problem you run into is that you just can't tell what the heck is going on. Too often Sterling is prattling on about some inane topic, wondering why anyone would ever bet on baseball or spewing out platitudes such as, "That is why they play the game."

Yes, there is a lot time between pitches and the radio announcers have to fill a lot of dead air, but it should never come at the expense of what's happening the field.

Sterling's job is to paint a word picture. On the radio, I prefer something reflecting realism, rather than the abstract ... and I love Jackson Pollock.

Then there is Sterling's over-the-top homerism. Now I expect every broadcast to be geared to that team's fan base. The announcers are hired by the team, and face it, the fans want that perspective.

But Sterling takes it obscene heights. He has yet to criticize all the homers flying out Yankee Stadium. He never is critical of management. Close calls? It's a near miracle if he admits a call for the opposition is correct. Then there is the "Home office for baseball."

Have some objectivity, John, please.

Yankees fans are not stupid. In fact, though Dave may snicker, they are rather sophisticated fans who understand the game very well and are not going buy that kind of propaganda.

And as bad as those issues are, they are not the biggest problem.

Sterling has simply become far too inaccurate and has lost all credibility.

How often do we have to hear him launch into his home run call, "It is high! It is far! It is ..." only to have the ball go foul or be caught at the wall? Or how about last season when he said a ball bounced off the wall for a ground-rule double. What?!? Is that even physically possible?

He gets names wrong and too often loses track of who is hitting, who is pitching or even which park he is in. Often he just can't see what's happening and his calls lag the play so much that his description just becomes lacking.

The worst was on a home run call for Hideki Matsui this week.

Sterling has a home run call for every Yankee. Some calls are clever. Some are entertaining.

For Alex Rodriguez, it's "An A-Bomb from A-Rod!"

Now I hate that call anyway. Do we really need a call that invokes a weapon of mass destruction that killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians? (NOTE: This is not a commentary about whether the U.S. was right to drop the A-Bomb to end World War II. That said, its use still is not something to be celebrated).

Monday Sterling lost track of who was hitting, and when Matsui launched a three-run homer against the Rangers, the call was, "An A-Bomb for A-Rod!" Talk about a major gaffe! Talk about the height of insensitivity!

Look, Sterling still does some good work. His narration for YES Network's original programs such as "Yankeeography" is tremendous. He's perfect for Old-Timers' Day or other Yankee Stadium festivities.

It's just that his time behind the mike for play-by-play is over.

It's time to find some one new.

As for his partner, Suzyn Waldman, oh my goodness gracious!

Truth is she doesn't bother me that much because I accept for what she is: a reporter. Send her down to the locker room and let her talk to the manager, coaches, players and general manager and she will bring back good stuff, though sometime I wonder if she's a little too cozy with the team (see Roger Clemens' return to the Yankees).

When it comes to analysis, though, it's just not her strong suit. Too often she just settles for the obvious, such as, "You don't want too many lefties in the lineup against a tough lefty like Jon Lester." Well, duh.

Still, she could have a useful role in the booth, provided there is a legit analyst as a third person.

I am fortunate to live in southwestern Connecticut and work in Hartford because it has given me the opportunity to listen to the radio broadcasts for the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets.

The Red Sox's broadcast is not bad, though not without significant faults.

But by far, the best broadcast belongs to the Mets. Their guys are accurate, well informed and insightful.

I just wish the other broadcasts, especially the Yankees', were half as good.

Why Silence Is Golden

When you are a baseball player, what you say is something of great interest to the public. It can be a stirring speech, like Lou Gehrig's good-bye. It can be profane and hilarious, like Lee Elia's infamous rant after the Cubs got off to a 5-14 start in 1983. And quite often, it can be misinterpreted.

That is the situation Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia has found himself in today. In an interview with Boston magazine, he is quoted slagging his hometown in California.

Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia [stats] yesterday came out swinging at a Boston magazine profile that has gotten him into a heap of trouble with his hometown, which he portrayed as a “dump” and a place that every kid wants to flee.

“I’m totally crushed by this, devastated, because I didn’t mean it that way at all,” the Woodland, Calif., native told the Sacramento Bee. “The (Boston) writer doesn’t know my personality. I kid around a lot, and that’s what I was doing when I was talking about Woodland.”

Here is the quote, a response to a question about Pedroia's hometown of Woodland, CA:

“Everyone wants to get out of there. You don’t want to stay in Woodland. What do you want to stay in Woodland for? The place sucks.”

Understandable that, at first glance, the people of Woodland would be upset. But Pedroia insists he was kidding when he said those words. I'm inclined to believe him for a couple of reasons.

First, Pedroia is a wiseass. And cracking on his hometown in a joking manner fits his personality. It's exactly the kind of thing he would say. It isn't as if he is deadly serious in everything he says. Hell, this is guy joking he can't hit an inside fastball on a video game commercial.

Second, I have never seen him say a bad thing about Woodland in any other interview. Why would he do so now? Why, after almost four years of intensive interviews, would Pedroia say something negative about his hometown only now?

It'd be easy to point out that the gentleman who performed the interview is based in New York. So I won't mention that he may have felt possibly tempted to portray Pedroia's words in a certain manner.

But what Pedrioa hopefully learned from this is that you have to be careful with what you say. That, and that sarcasm doesn't come across well in print.

I just hope this doesn't adversely affect his season. The Sox need him locked in and his bat working. If he is thinking about this, and he isn't hitting, the Sox will be in a bad way.