The Age Old Debate

Starter. Bullpen. Starter. Bullpen. The debate continues to rage on. Should Joba Chamberlain, the Yankees phenom with the golden right arm, pitch every 5 games or be the bridge from a beleaguered bullpen to Mariano Rivera? I had taken the stance over the past couple of years that Joba should be a starter. Many facts contributed to my opinion, but the 2008/2009 off-season completely reversed my way of thinking on this issue.

There are 2 words I can say to summarize when I thought the Yankees should move Joba to the bullpen. Its not "CC Sabathia", "AJ Burnett", or "Mark Teixeira". No, the Yanks should have changed their position once "Andy Pettitte" re-signed with the team. One of the main reasons that the Bombers needed Joba in the rotation before 2009 was because of the lack of quality pitching on the team. With the past off-season, Brian Cashman went out and bought himself a new pitching staff. That's fine. In fact I applaud him for it. It was clear that over the past few seasons the strategy of buy an offense and pray for pitching would not be successful. Even after the Yankees signed Sabathia and Burnett, I was STILL on the "Joba is a starter" side of the argument.

At that time, the Yanks' rotation was slated to be Sabathia, Burnett, Wang, and Joba, with the 5th spot up for grabs. Then they went out and re-signed Pettitte, ending a 2 month long dance that culminated with good ol' #46 continuing his career in pinstripes. It was at THIS POINT that the Yankees should have changed direction and had Joba shutting teams down at the back-ends of ballgames. With Pettitte added to that rotation and an opportunity for a youngster like Phil Hughes to come into Spring Training and EARN a spot, instead of being handed one, this Yankee's staff could have been phenomenal from Opening Day. Instead, the bullpen has been an utter disaster. Unproven guys have been remarkably inconsistent and reliable veterans have been buckling under the pressure of holding teams to minor leads so the offense can strike.

With Joba in the rotation this year, the Yankees are also hamstrung as to how much they can pitch him. He is under strict orders this year to not pitch over 150 innings. Now, what happens if he gets to 148 innings by mid-September? Do they shut him down for the pennant run? Do they not include Joba on the post-season roster? In todays game, I just dont see how you can use a hardline number like that and expect to be competitive all year round. Here's a simple solution. Put Joba in the pen. Not as an 8th inning guy. Use him as a 7th AND 8th inning guy. How valuable would that be? Your starting pitchers now only need to pitch a 6 inning game. Joba comes in the 7th throwing flames, continues in the 8th, then Mo for the 9th to shut it down. Its a formula that works (just ask the '96 Yanks). Not only can you use him in save situations, he'd be ideal for keeping opposing teams from increasing leads late in games. It couldn't have been more evident than this past week. General storyline: Yanks trail early, fight back late to whittle the lead down to 1 or 2 runs, other team scores a bunch of runs late off bullpen to put game out of reach. With Joba waiting behind the outfield walls, those teams likely would have held where they were and the vaunted Yankee offense could have made the headlines. Need a spot starter? There's Joba - a GOOD use of limiting him to 5 innings. With an attack on using Joba in this fashion, he can approach the 150 innings just as well with remaining fresh for the playoffs, as well as helping the team in ints most vulnerable area. Speaking of the playoffs, Joba is the Yankees 5th starter - aka he wont start in October, why not start now?

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

Now I'm a huge sports fan, but moreover I'm an even bigger Yankees fan. I was asked what I wanted for my birthday from my girlfriend and without a second thought my answer was "go to the new Yankees Stadium". (PS, June 2nd vs. the Rangers its so on) What I really don't understand is why the Yankees and Yankee fans are so afraid of change.

Every review I've heard about the new stadium has just gushed about how amazing it is. The amenities are all state of the art and more than you could ever imagine being at a baseball stadium. Thats all well and good, and believe me I have no issue with that. My main gripe about the new cathedral in the Bronx is this: Why does it have to be a carbon copy of the building you just used? I'm a Yankees fan. I'm used to the traditions, the history, the "way it is". But you just spent $1.5 BILLION on a new stadium. The outside of the stadium looks like Yankee Stadium from the 20s. The inside of the stadium looks like Yankee Stadium from the 90s. Why do we have a new stadium then? The point of new is to start over. It seems to me like the Yankees wanted new but to keep the old.

I've been to Camden Yards, Citizens Bank Park, and Progressive Field (formerly Jacobs Field). These new stadiums opened as homages to old parks. But one thing that these stadiums have is an identity to themselves. The new Yankee Stadium is just an ode to the old Yankee Stadium. It seems to me that if they loved the old place so much, they should have just stayed there. The Yankees spent a lot of money, and it seems like everyone who has been there is more than happy with their experience. It just feels like if you're going to create a new stadium, a new home for the next 85 years, it should be NEW, it just have its own identity. It almost feels akin to parents who lose their child and then have a new kid and name it the same and force them to accept all the same things the previous child liked.

During its 4 game homestand with the Indians, the stadium has set a record for most homeruns hit in the first 4 games of ANY park. This includes Coors Field (pre-humador), Great American Ballpark, Citizens Bank Park, and Camden Yards. Some people say there's a jetstream that carries the ball out to right field. Some say its because this stadium (as opposed to the old Yankee Stadium) has open spaces which contributes to the jetstream theory. Others say its simply because the pitching has been poor. Personally I dont buy this one. I watched all 4 games. Multiple times I saw hitters pop a ball up, break a bat, show a look of disgust after the ball went in the air, and the next thing you know, the ball is 4 rows deep into the stands. I find it hard to believe that no one saw this coming. Stadium construction is a very precise art, and with the money the Yankees spent on this one, you cannot convince me that it was surprising to them that the ball could carry the way it does.

That just brings me back to my main complaint. Why did the field have to be exactly the same as the old Yankee Stadium? The old Yankee Stadium was the House That Ruth Built. The Yankees were smart back then. They designed a stadium which played exactly into the strength of their club - lefthanded power hitting. The Giants did the same thing when they made AT&T Park (or PacBell Park or SBC Park or whatever they'll call it next year). They made an arena which played directly to the face of their franchise - Barry Bonds. The Yankees, on the other hand, just left it the same. It seems like the Yankees are so enamored with their own history that they use that as a crutch to avoid changing with the times. Building a brand new ballpark is a fantastic way to shake things up a little, to find a way to give an advantage to a team who expects no less than greatness every year and has fallen short 8 years in a row. Instead of designing the park to help the Yankees, now every left handed power hitter can pad their stats in the Bronx. Back when Yankee Stadium first opened, a player with the skill set of Babe Ruth was confined to Babe Ruth. Nowadays, a high schooler could deposit 3 run homers over the right field fence. So why do we need a Yankee Stadium replica? The short answer is we don't. I'm excited to see the new stadium. I'm excited to see what "state of the art" means in terms of multi-billion dollars. I'm excited that when I go to get some food, I can still see the game. (As a person who grew up in Philadelphia, this was the norm at both the Vet and Citizens Bank Park) I am particularly intrigued by the Great Hall. It looks like a vast dedication to the greatest team in the history of professional sports. And that's fine. I don't mind the idea of displaying the rich history and traditions of the Yankees. But does it have to be everywhere? The fences have to be the same distance? The asthetic has the be same? When I walk into a new stadium and drop double the amount of money, I want to feel like I'm in a new stadium, not Yankee Stadium 2.0.