The Yanks are 61-50, with a Pythagorean W/L of 68-43, while the Red Sox are 68-43, with a Pythagorean W/L of 69-52.

These two teams are very evenly matched. If Clemens/Pettitte/Wang/Mussina/Hughes is up to the task, this could be quite a battle coming through September.

The Jays, incidentally, are 56-54 (59-51), so underplaying their performance, but not nearly as badly as the Yanks are.

This is going to be a real statement series for the Jays.  Being 5 games back, they have the opportunity to either jump right into the wild card race with a series win, or be knocked out with a sweep. 

It will be interesting to see if they play with that sense of urgency. 

I'm about the last Vernon Wells apologist you'll find on this site, but he does have a 900 OPS against LHP this year, so today at least made somse sense.

Now, his 700 OPS vs. RHP is definitely a problem...

The Yankees are quite simply a better team than the Blue Jays. Rance said something to the effect of there being 2 or 3 times in a game when each team has the opportunity to win the game, and the team that performs in those situations will win. The Yankees continually perform in these situation vs the Jays.

Did Frank Thomas honestly think he was getting ball 4 called in the bottom of the 9th against Rivera? The guy just mowed down 2 hitters, and he has the reputation to get the benefit of the doubt every time. Get the bat off your shoulder!

I said last series that the Jays "pee themselves" against the Yankees every series, and today's game was no exception. Of course they were able to beat the Yankees in April and May, they were awful. When the chips are down, the Yankees know how to win and the Jays don't. Enjoy October Bronx Bombers.

A lot of professonal athletes speak of being "in the zone" when things seem to just come easier for them....none of them can really explain what it is but all describe it as a feeling of having hightened abilities.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as being "in the zone" as a team, but there certainly seems to be times when good team - playoff caliber teams - APPEAR to be "in the zone".

Those are those times when they play like the best team ever for acouple of weeks in a row and win 14 of 17 or something like that. that's the one thing that has been missing from the psedo-contender Jays of the last few years, they never get, as a team, "in the zone" - while other teams do and they get left behind.

I personally think that it is the absence of such hot streaks that keeps the Jays from playing meaningful Septemeber games, AND is responsible for the impression by some fans that they don't know how to "utrn it up a notch" when they need too...even if that conclusion is just an illusion.

I'm pretty sure if you took the 3-4-5 hitters on a team  and plotted their performance game by game you wouldn't find a very  high correlation as far  them hitting well during the same game.

Exactly. But teams with "better" top hitters hit well during the same game more often, obviously.

Which brings me back to my original point: after 110 games or so played in 2007, is Vernon Wells one of the Jays top three hitters? Methinks not.

So why is he still hitting third? Because he's getting paid a lot of money? Because he's most comfortable there? Whatever the reason that I can think of, it doesn't seem to be good enough. He's simply not productive there. As such, he should be moved - even if it's a temporary move.

Josh the Stopper vs. the Rocket. I've been waiting for a game like this all year. Yesterday's game?  Forget about it, Jake, it's Yankeetown. So nice to see a crisp inning-ending 3-4-3 double play. I hope we see Thigpen as a late inning defensive catcher today and every day.

Jamie Campbell: Please, please, please look up Abreu's hitting history. Please stop characterizing him as a once power hitter who used to "carry the Phillies for weeks at a time". He only cracked the 20:1 AB:HR ratio twice in his career, and both times just barely. Is it that homerun derby you're thinking of?

Abreu has been a tremendous and underrated offensive player, don't get me wrong, what with a broad arsenal of skills: high batting average, a ton of walks, a lot of doubles, high SB ratio and 20ish HR. But he's not the man you keep portraying him as.

Keep whining, A-Rod. Whatta baby! lol

Nice bruise. Hope your (soon-to-be-ex-) wife enjoys half your money. :)

Seriously, how old is this guy? Twelve?

I can see why Yank fans are all riled up about Towers' comments about Pena (there seems to be history there or who knows what was said on the field by Pena) but boy there 'post game comment' thread on nyyfans.com is just ridiculously one sided and nauseating.  It's like grade 3 all over again.

Must win game today.  Pride is at stake.

err that should read 'their' of course.  I can't believe I did that, but it is early.

But to re-iterate at least on sosh I can get a few laughs to go along with their whining.

We know JG can't communicate, let's see if he has backbone to DFA him.

Gibbons would have no authority to do so.

I'd agree that Janssen and possibly Litsch (too early to say for sure) are more valuable than Chacin, but there's no way in hell I'd ever put Towers ahead of him...  I know stats might indicate otherwise, but my eyes tell me Chacin knows how to WIN games.  Towers seems too focused on trying to establish himself in the clubhouse, as a major leaguer, as a guy who looks out for his teammates, as a guy with good enough stuff, etc... he should put all that energy into actually winning a game! 

Towers has a great game once in a while, but then has real stinkers where the jays have no shot.  Chacin almost always gives the team a chance to win, and I think everyone values that.  Chacin, 25-15 lifetime... Towers, 45-54.

The sports section at the Globe & Mail website has a poll on who should be dropped from the rotation when Burnett comes back. I assume this is intended as some sort of sanity test.

Incidentally, there were 7 votes each for dropping McGowan and Marcum.

"Check out Bob Dylan's "Foot of Pride" on The Bootleg Series, Volumes 1--3, Josh." Or even better, Lou Reed's incendiary version on the Bob-fest video.

We were at this frustrating and fascinating game. What sticks with me is McDonald's defensive gems, the Posada throw-outs; Lyle scooping absolutely everything, yet diving like a nervous statue at two shots over the bag--this man has a very sore hand, and so must Zaun whose swings seem very long for him. I had hoped Stairs might bat for Zaunie in the seventh, however  much of an insult that could have seemed.

But  I came away with respect for the Yankee game plan: don't try to kill Towers' dinky offerings--just line 'em to the outfield. And we wondered if Torre's decision to have Cabrera bunt with a four-run-lead  had a whiff of the deep woods to it, or as a Yankoid twit behind us suggested, "Joe's getting him a single for the cycle." Geez.

Mostly tho I thought about Roger, who wasn't really all that good, but who got a major assist from umpire Cousins for his assortment of sub-patellar heaters, and a ridiculous deference on the mound after he plugged Alex--Cousins did everything short of lick him...right there on the Jumbotron. Hey! No discussion, Roger...get off the field.

Oh, and if Damon could bunt, he'd make a fine DH.

You should get them checked. Teams win ballgames, not pitchers. If it were up to me Wins, Losses, and Saves would all be abolished from the stat book. I can't stand how managers manage games with those stats in mind.

Well, gee my EYES showed me Chacin getting more wins and keeping his team in more games than losses.. and funny enough the stats back that up.  Did YOUR eyes not pick that up?  Maybe you feel that playoff teams should be decided by run differential instead of actual WINS? 

And as much as I also love my stats, I also realize that my 30mins a day spent thinking about Jays strategy might not always give me a better perspective than the Jays coaches, GM, staff etc who do this as a fulltime job... so I tend to give them some credit for going with a pitcher who they might FEEL gives them a better chance to win regardless of what the stats say.

And how about stats like ERA?  and opponent batting average?  should those go out the window because Chacin is superior to Towers?

Chacin has always been a good pitcher when he's been healthy. Even last year, he had a decent April and a strong September. Some players are able to succeed without the peripheral numbers people think they should have.

Of course, he really can't be counted on to be healthy at this point, so we'll have to see what happens. I'd say he deserves a shot at the rotation, but he's going to have some competition from Litsch and Janssen. (at least, I hope Janssen)

"Check out Bob Dylan's "Foot of Pride" on The Bootleg Series, Volumes 1--3, Josh."

Look , Towers was *not* very good last night - his control wasn't great, and he kept leaving pitches up, with predictable results - but it seems like a lot to ask for him (or just about anybody) to beat the Yankees when the team behind him couldn't muster more than 3 hits in 6 innings, and only scored 2 runs the entire game. He's gotten lousy run support this year, but then so have most of the Jays starters.

 Not to mention that the bullpen coughed up 5 runs on its own, after Josh had been yanked.

Mostly tho I thought about Roger, who wasn't really all that good, but who got a major assist from umpire Cousins for his assortment of sub-patellar heaters

To my eyes, it wasn't just Clemens who was getting the benefit of the doubt - Tallet got absolutely *robbed* on a beautiful 3-2 pitch to Damon which loaded the bases, and then threw what looked like 5 strikes to Jeter (only two of which were actually called), and then got robbed again in the next inning when he fooled Cano on a 3-2 pitch (it looked to me like Cano clearly went around), which was again called a ball.

The frustrating thing was that the Yankees didn't need the benefit of the doubt - they're clearly a better team, and  the Jays were (again) completely awful at the plate.

I'm not sure what the solution is to the Jays offensive woes. It's hard to know how much to fault Gibbons - after all, it's not him up there swinging the bat . Sure, he could move Wells down in the order, but its not just Vernon - Overbay, Glaus and Thomas are all having pretty lousy years. The only  thing I think he probably should be doing is something that virtually no manager in baseball would do - platoon Thomas and Stairs at DH. That still leaves a gaping hole at shortstop (and catcher - Zaun is batting .245) and no left handed hitters on the bench, and that's not Gibbons fault.

You're right about Zaun...he had five hits in Texas, and while none against the Yanks yet, he only pinch hit the first game. Maybe it's my eyes that're sore.

About Roger not being the only one affected by official favor.  As the Yankees Steinbrenner their way to the post-season they are just as much a trial for the umpires as they are for their opponents. For some of us, too.

If it were up to me Wins, Losses, and Saves would all be abolished from the stat book.

This from a guy who used RBI to compare the offensive contribution of centerfielders?!?

;)

Whatever happened to the Roster anyways? Many seem to have left.....

Some have. And others have come on board. We're still here, but living in the never-never land between letting the discussions morph naturally (and being accused of disappearing) and stepping in and directing them more often (and hearing cries of Hitler, Stalin and other labels that are less than kind).  It's a weird place to be, and unless something really crosses a line, I personally stay out of it -- I think this is true of most members of the Roster.

This publication is very much owned by its community. It's true that the nature of the discourse on Da Box has "changed" as the membership has grown, but that is bound to happen in any electronic community. The bottom line here is, anything you don't like about Batter's Box, feel free to blame Mike Green. (Just kidding. But I am all about deflecting blame to others, especially those who are unequivocally not at fault. I learn from Barry Bonds!)

We're still here, but living in the never-never land between letting the discussions morph naturally (and being accused of disappearing) and stepping in and directing them more often (and hearing cries of Hitler, Stalin and other labels that are less than kind).

We can have good paternalistic rule without hostile dictatorship - why not a little Queen Vic???  With all our faults, we love our Roster!!  (We are not members of the common throng!)

I should first note, for the record, that I do not speak for the entire Roster, nor do I wish to appear to be doing so. That said, I geniunely do not recall anyone being "disappeared" from this site for reasons outside breaking the de-facto user agreement, and nobody has ever been banned or even temporarily removed without extensive conversation via e-mail.

I understand the ongoing complaints about "featured comments," and again just for the record want to note -- nobody even seemed to notice when Da Box moved from default-not-featured to default-featuring of all comments (as it is now). That was the Roster listening to the community and responding. On the current home page, there are nearly 350 comments on the stories up now, and by my count, exactly four have been de-featured. Two of those, I did myself -- because of the use of inappropriate language. I could have just as easily deleted the comments, but what would that accomplish?

And also for the record, I see that two of the last six comments I de-featured were posted by me in the first place, So I am comfortable standing by what I originally wrote.

Again, those views may or may not be shared by other members of The Roster. Incidentally, where there were originally four Roster members -- all now, coincidentally, "Retired," -- and another two or three are essentialy inactive, the "staff" has grown from that original four to now a good 20.  All of whom, I believe, were originally non-Roster "Bauxites" (including me). So "owned by the community"? Yes, indeed, it is.

You went on to talk about Chacin's propensity to win ballgames, and it was then and only then did I start to mock you, telling you to get your eyes checked.

Lol, so, the mocking wasn't a great start was it?  Maybe you'll have a better finish.

Umm... and teams are made out of players, no?  And my subsequent posts were all about how pitchers who allow fewer runs give their teams a better chance to win.  Are you trying to say that pitchers performance is not related to a team's propensity to win?  I never said that Chacin all-by-himself could defeat an opposing team...  I'd also recommend taking a look at WinShares to understand player values.

I just tossed in that in my opinion I'd prefer to see Towers start for the Jays than Chacin.

Right, and I've been waiting for ANY reasoning behind that opinion... I never wanted to get into any of this other stuff... all I wanted to know is why you believe Towers is a better option than Chacin.  Stats don't support this, and neither does their won-loss record (which I know you don't care about anyways).  Do you SEE something or have a FEELING about Towers that makes you believe this? 

subculture, i really don't want to do this with you, but since you are insistent on duking it out, let's do it.

Okay, so let's not 'duke it out', I'd just like to hear a rational explanation supporting your statements, that we can go forward with. 

"teams win ballgames, not players" - please explain

"I'd prefer to see Towers start for the Jays than Chacin." - why?

Subculture throws a challenge heater down the middle of the plate...

Strike one!  RoyalsFan must have been taking all the way.

Subculture rears back and throws another juicy meatball right down the middle....

I don't appreciate your tone, or your immature baseball broadcasting.

It's your statement, surely you can support it even a little bit? 

Just because at some point baseball statisticians decided to start awarding "wins" to the starting pitcher does not mean that pitchers can "win" games. Teams do, not individual players. I am not sure how I can explain it any better, I find it to be pretty self explanatory. If you would like to explain to me how a pitcher can win a game, I am more than happy to listen.

"What is it about Towers that you prefer over Chacin?"

He's much better looking. I made it clear it had nothing to do with stats. I was mentioning him as the 7th guy on the depth chart, Chacin #8. Obviously my feeling is that neither should start next year. If I'm going to be stuck with having to use one of the crappy guys, I'd rather Towers, and maybe it's just for character. I find Towers to be filled with fire, an edge. Chacin, on the other hand, has no problem getting plastered the night before a spring training start and driving under the influence. Not that I know Towers doesn't do the same, just Chacin got caught. It doesn't say much for his committment to the game/team that he is out drinking the night before a start, and pulled over for drunk driving at 4 in the morning. My gut tells me Josh does not do the same.

B/c while certain stats (like K/9) seem to be correlate well with a pitcher's success, you need to look at the whole picture, look at ALL the stats that you have available, because there are exceptions to every rule (and every stat), and to NOT look at W-L record is pretty foolish.

I agree 100% that is impossible to just look at stats and be able to paint a picture, predict future success. There are way too many intangibles that go into these stats that you really need to watch every game to have a better understand of how a guy has fared. That being said, W-L is not a stat. It is useless, in my opinion. We can agree to disagree. I will not even glance at a pitcher's record, because to me it means absolutely nothing.  I'm not sure why you find it foolish though, or better yet - What information can you get, in terms of future predictions, from looking at a guys W-L record?

Your last 5 points are all extremely relevant, and the first time you have actually addressed what you can get out of looking at a W-L record. If you believe a pitcher's record can be indicative of the things you mentioned, that's one thing. They certainly are not located in the peripherals, as you pointed out. Do they exist in W-L record? Perhaps. I don't see it. I find the W-L record to be way too reliant on a team's offense, and actually have very little to do with the things you mentioned. I think the reason Chacin was over .666% last year was the Blue Jays offence, and near nothing to do with any of the 5 things you said. And that's based on watching all his starts. He was not a good pitcher. He was a lucky one, that his tribulations were masked by one of the best offenses in the league. Towers, especially this year, has not had the same fortunate luck. When he gives up 4 runs over 5 or 6 innings, he loses every time, as he should.

Man, I could go on and on... but very interested in all the great stuff you're going to contribute so I'll wait for your response...

Please stop trying to show me up with a condescending tone.

I never intended for this to be a discussion about who is better, Towers or Chacin. So from here on out, let's keep it to whether or not Chacin has a "propensity" to win games, and whether or not you need laser eye surgery.