Top Sheff?

For a while there it looked like Gary Sheffield's wrist was on the mend. Now, it seems to be worse, or at least no better, and a trip to the doctor and perhaps a stint on the DL are in the offing. His bat will be missed, and big time. (Bernie presumably steps in to his rightfield slot, where his arm will be a serious problem), and the DH slot is then open, perhaps allowing Giambi to be spelled in the field by Andy Phillips. But the larger problem may be handling Sheff, who's in the last year of his contract, and is now protesting that he will not return if he's in any pain, and will not jeopardize his future. Torre, a smart diplomat, has stated that he doesn't want Sheff to do anything that might hurt him in the future. So at this point Cashman's gambit in not immediately picking up Sheff's option for next year seems smart, at least financially. But from the other side, we now have a player who's going to be awfully conservative about putting himself back on the field, especially if he feels there's not an organizational commitment. Best case scenario: Sheff's wrist improves, and fast. We'll hope for that.

Comments

[SF]

We smell #4 on this year's "Yankees' Excuses" top 10 list, following "rough opening schedule", "the umpires hate us", and "Tanyon Sturtze". I wonder what #5 - #10 will be...

[mattymatty]

Sheffield's always been a me-first guy so this type of behavior should not be surprising. He'll act this way until the yankees pick up his option, then he'll act this way next season until they give him a contract extension.

I wonder how Damon is enjoying being in a clubhouse with this guy, Slappy McBluelips and The Big Ugly. What a bunch this is.

[YF]

I'm not sure what "excuses" means. Analysis maybe. Obviously the Yanks had a tough early schedule. They struggled through it, and now they're in first. Nothing that wasn't expected. If Sheffield goes out long term, that's a serious problem. If Manny were injured, that would be a problem for the Sox. If you were concerned about that, it wouldn't be tossed out, by me, as some kind of Sox "excuse." Grow up.

[mattymatty]

YF loves to throw stuff in there, like "now they're in first. Nothing that wasn't expected." Ho hum, first place, la la la. Actually, point of order, right now yr TIED for first place. Yes, I know, percentage points, but last time I checked the season will end with everyone playing the same number of games. Percentage points won't be the deciding factor, games back will. Right now we're tied.

As for Sheffield's injury being an excuse, I'd say its a legitimate excuse in that if he's out you don't have your best team on the field. But then thats one of the problems with signing old players (not to mention old players who used steriods) to long term deals.

Also, the comparison to Manny doesn't hold. Manny is our best player, and on top of that he has no injury history. I'd say losing Rodriguez is a better comparison.

[Ally]

I have to agree with the Sox fans (!) The Yankees are making excuses. If you're a better team then you beat the best teams out there. We got off to a rough start that has little to do with the early schedule. Fortunately we're back on track.

Sheffield has his panties in a wad. I don't expect any less from him. He's amazing on the field but his off the field antics are like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum in the produce aisle. If he isn't playing for the team he's just as invaluable as a mediocre player. Hopefully his wrist heals quickly and he stops whining. And I think the Yankees should consider calling up Melky Cabrera. Look at what Cano and Wang did for us last season. Maybe then we could trade Sheff for pitching prospects, considering all our pitchers are becoming extinct.

[SF]

Well, if the Sox lost Manny that would mean that they would be without both Ramirez AND their starting centerfielder (who has been out for, uh, a month), so I am not sure your comparison stands up. But, as you like to say so often, whatever.

You are awfully testy, YF. Channeling Sheff?

[NickYF]

Would the comparison to losing Ortiz hold? Seems like your getting mighty technical there, MattyMatty. The point is that Sheff is a hitter comparable to both players. Sheff's loss is obviously going to hurt big time which is the overall point with which you agree. It sometimes amazes me how people underrate Sheff. He's a great hitter. Not good. Great.

It's odd that SF thinks this is excuse-making. After all, SF does occasionally mention the loss of Coco (that's the problem with signing young players I guess-the injuries). No? His not playing might have something to do with the Sox not doing so well against good competition. Just maybe?

Regarding the schedule "excuse." YF and I called it. That's right. Because schedule actually does matter, we brought it up in our analysis of the first two weeks of the season. People might remember this as the era of Hudson bolding the respective records of the Sox and Yanks in his posts. Ah, those were the days. And then time passed, and, it turns out, we (YF and I, you might call us visionaries)were right. The gap closed. The Sox faced tougher competition and had a harder time of it. Meanwhile, the Yanks went on a home-stand, faced easier teams, and did well. Again, it was just well-reasoned analysis, a thing SF usually does well.

[SF]

Come on, Nick. The Sox and Yanks are both playing at just around a .600 clip. The Yanks played poorly in the first two weeks of the season, and it wasn't the schedule. It was THEM. The Sox played brilliantly the first week of the season, and it wasn't the schedule, it was the team. And the Sox had a rough go of it for a 10 day stretch for all sorts of reasons, and I would argue that it had to do with some bad managing, coincident cold streaks, and a key injury, but not the schedule (the Sox were poised to take 2/3 against Toronto and the pitching imploded, an anomaly, and they handed a game away in Cleveland to a good team, but still should have taken 2/3 - these things happen in long season). You guys were right that the Yankees would do better (I agreed with that supposition way back when), but to pin their early troubles on the schedule was to me absurd, and still is. They are playing better because it's a long season and they are a pretty good team.

As for the Coco Crisp out, I think I have been consistent in posting that the loss was bad for the team, and that I want him to come back as soon as possible, not very different from what YF has posted here. BUT, I didn't post that on the heels of several other of my own posts (and newspaper stories, admittedly not yours or YF's) about how the schedule was (boo hoo!) tough, and how the Yankees get hosed by the umps (the Yankees, not you or YF, did this). I put blame precisely on those who deserve blame: the manager and the players.

And as for YF getting all snippy and responding by telling me to "grow up" and referring to this post as "analysis", I am not sure how saying "Sheffield being hurt is bad for the Yankees and if he gets healthy fast that's a good thing" qualifies as analysis. But maybe I am just being a little grumpy.

[mattymatty]

Sheffield is comparable to Manny and Ortiz? At the risk of sounding "technical" Nick, I think you'd better check the numbers. At least at this stage of their careers they aren't close.

2005 (OPS)
Ortiz: 1.001
Manny: .982
Sheffield: .891

2006 (OPS)
Ortiz: .943
Manny: .954
Sheffield: .870

[SF]

Let's just leave it at this, if we want to create Sox/Yanks parallels:

The Sox have played 85% of their season without Coco Crisp. The Yankees have played 2 games without Gary Sheffield. Let's talk in a month if Sheffield hasn't played another game (though I still think that Crisp may be more important to the Sox than Sheff is to the Yanks I'll leave that be). Picking nits over whether Sheffield is comparable to A-Rod, Papi, or Manny is just that. Sheff is a very important player - it will be interesting to see what happens, how the Yankees adjust, if he misses a lot of time.

[mattymatty]

I agree, SF, but I think I don't think its splitting hairs to say that Sheffield is a second tier player on the yankees. A good hitter, but he's more along the lines of Trot Nixon, minus the self-centered jackassity. Rodriguez and Giambi are the two offensive stars on that team, like Papi and Manny on the Sox. (And Giambi has clearly been the best of the bunch this year too.)

[NickYF]

I agree with MattyMatty that Trot's a self-centered jackass.

[SF]

MM:

Sheff is NOT Trot Nixon. Offensively, it's not even a contest, though Trot is probably a better defender at this point. And while he may not be the most important player on the Yankees, his numbers are his numbers, and the last two years he's basically gone .290-30-125-.900, and Trot can't carry his bat. That you consider Sheffield a "second tier" player on the Yankees says more about their offensive depth than anything else.

I don't think his loss is insignificant, even with their depth. And I hope we get like four or five weeks (at least) to find out how significant.

[Sam]

And the old, rational, SF resurfaces.

It's not an excuse to say Sheff will be missed. For crying out loud, the team has been rolling in his absence! But it is fair to point out that his absence could well hurt the Yanks in the weeks ahead.

As for the sked - SF, don't you think it's more than coincidence that the Sox "played well" when they were playing the poorer teams, while the Yanks not playing well happened at the same time as road trips to Oakland, LA and Minnesota? Schedule does matter, and I think the disparity between the competition that the two teams faced in the first couple of weeks of the season (one home series against the Royals for the Yanks notwithstanding) is worth mentioning.

[mattymatty]

Again, I agree, SF. My statement that Sheffield "is a second tier player on the yankees" is absolutely a testament to the lineup that the Yankees put out there. In my original statement I said "on the yankees", and thats what I meant.

As for the comparison to Nixon, this year they're pretty close. The last few years Nixon has been hurt and not nearly as good as Sheffield. But the comparison I was making was in the context of 1) their respective teams, and 2) this season.

2006 OPS
Nixon: .906
Sheffield: .870

Pretty close this season, and the gap widens when you consider defense.

[SF]

the Sox "played well" when they were playing the poorer teams

They started on the road in Texas (a place historically they haven't done well), played their first six away from Fenway. They started with a full lineup, completely healthy. They hit the skids when they had to adjust their lineup to not having Crisp (or Nixon for a week) and when Francona made a series of inexplicable lineup moves (probably related to the fluctuating personnel). So no, I don't think the Sox mopped up on the easy teams. But if that's what you want to think to explain why they did well then by all means think that.

[NickYF]

MM, Nixon's a platoon player. He's very good, but he loses a lot in the Sheff comparison (even using the small sample of 2006) because he always plays fewer games (putting much more of a strain on the Sox bench) than Sheff does.

[mattymatty]

Nick, good point. I've always thought the Sox were too quick to platoon Nixon, but in any case you're right. Still though, this season Sheffield has only 8 more plate appearances (at-bats plus walks) than Nixon does. Games played, RBIs, and homeruns are similar.

[NickYF]

another thing regarding the Sheff comparison to Ortiz and Manny. Now I'm not saying Sheff is as good as either, although I think he's on their level. For instance, the Hardball Times' has Sheff (21) as having more win shares than Ortiz and less than Manny (22) in 2005. I'm no stats guy (in other words, I have no idea how this number was arrived at, and what exactly it signifies) but I'll always use one that helps my argument out. Still, one respected system of valuation shows that these three players are of similar value.

and now I'm truly nitpicking.

[mattymatty]

Win shares are interesting. I had no idea they were that close last season, but if you look at some slightly more traditional (and transparent) stats they don't look the same at all. Homers, RBIs (which I don't like, but there you have it) and OPS all favor Ortiz and Manny over Sheffield. Actually, I haven't looked up RBIs, I'm guessing on that one.

[NickYF]

I think a team as smart as the Sox recognizes Trot's limitations. He's just lost against lefties, and there's probably no point in trying to get him in there when one's on the mound. Theo and Co would play him everyday otherwise, it certainly not the cost-effective and easiest activity to have to find a lefty platoon player for Trot. An interesting comp player for Trot is Paul O'Neil, although I'd take Paulie on my team any day over Trot. Their career numbers are similar though.

mattymatty,

When comparing Sox hitters and Yankee hitters, it is probably important to adjust for ballpark (majority of games in YS versus Fenway), no? SF is absolutely right in recognizing the value of Gary Sheffield as an offensive player. Please don't compare him to Trot Nixon (platooning maximizes his value, or rather, minimizes the damage from the Sox perspective), because they are at different levels as far as hitting is concerned.

[mattymatty]

Not this season they aren't on different levels, whoever you are. Thats my point. Over the course of their careers they are, as I've already stated. Sheffield is a borderline HoFer (hows that for "recognizing" Sheffield's offensive value?), while Nixon is simply a good player.

As for adjusting for ballparks, Fenway rates as a pitchers park just barely. Offhand I'm not sure how Yankee Stadium rates, but its probably comparable. Also, Fenway is much easier on right-handed hitters than left-handed hitters. I believe Yankee Stadium is more or less equal, but I could be wrong about that. I don't see how this bolsters anyone's argument.

So, THIS SEASON, they are comparable. Sheesh... why is this so difficult?

[Paul A.]

Considering how well (read: not well at all) the Twins are playing this season, I wouldn't put them on the list of Tough Teams the Yankees Played to Start Off 2006...

It's still early, folks. Neither team has played the White Sox or Tigers yet (I don't think), or heck, even each other! This series could go a long ways -- or not long at all -- to settling this argument.

[NickYF]

I'd say it's likely that an injury-free Sheff would be better than Trot over the span of the whole 2006 season. He's injured so it's almost a moot point. Again, this is early in the season, so it's a small sample, and not indicative of what necessarily is going to happen. A-Rod's probably going to be better than Brad Hawpe by the end of the season. He isn't now. If they played their whole seasons, Sheff is going to be better than Trot in all likelihood. Sheff's loss is bigger than Trot's potential loss for that reason IMHO.

[mattymatty]

I agree, Nick. Moreso because of who is behind each player though (Wily Mo v. The Ghost of Bernie Williams).

[sam]

That was me before with the ballpark comment, matty (I am a first time poster, so not to be confused with any other sam around here).

All I can say is, for the entire time there career has coincided, Gary Sheffield has had a higher OPS+ than Trot Nixon, every single year (more than 4 PAs), without being platooned to maximize his numbers. We will see at the end of the year.

[attackgerbil]

Defensively, Sheffield has lost range and every Yankees fan had concerns about the fact he needed cortisone shots to play right field with any degree of comfort (he couldn't raise his glove hand above his head with severe discomfort for a good part of 05) but his arm, especially considering his age, is a stunning asset. He is still considered one of the best throwers in right, and though Crosby is pretty quick to the ball, I would take Sheff's gun over Crosby.