14 comments Gene Wojciechowski Has A Suggestion For Joe Girardi

Gene Wojciechowski is a favorite target of mine, simply because he seems to write articles that I can in no way agree with...which means I enjoy mocking him even more. As you can see from the Bottom of the Barrel Gene Wojciechowski (or Gene W. as I call him) archive, there isn't too much in there about him. The only reason this is true is because I don't follow him closely enough. Consider this problem rectified. He is now on my "bookmarked" list.

Today, or actually before Game 4 of the World Series, Gene W. writes that Joe Girardi is making a mistake going with a three man rotation. He doesn't get Girardi's insistence on using a three man pitching staff for the World Series, even though those three pitchers are clearly the Yankees best pitchers. Gene W., lifelong Cubs fan (I am 90% sure of this) who hasn't seen his team win or play in the World Series in a long time seems to know what the best way to win a World Series is...and it isn't using a three man rotation.

Who would have thought using your three best pitchers in a World Series could ever be so controversial? I thought everyone thought it would be retro-cool for a manager to pretend it is the time before pitchers started to get strict pitch counts and treated like they have to be saved for some ultimate purpose in the future that may never arise (Yes, I am talking about 45 pitch start Joba Chamberlain-type stuff, not putting Kerry Wood out there for 140 pitches and then starting him three days later). Apparently Gene W. doesn't find this cool at all. I would think a three man rotation would be refreshing, but I would be wrong.

The reason I think a three man rotation is the best idea for the Yankees and that's because even last night when Burnett got knocked out early when working on three days rest, the Yankees still had chances to win the game. Sabathia, Burnett, and Pettitte are just clearly the three best starters for the Yankees and if Girardi has confidence in them to pitch on three days' rest, then I think this may be the right move. Wednesday night when Andy Pettitte is pitching, Chad Gaudin will be plenty rested to take over in case Pettitte runs into trouble. The advantage the Yankees have is even if a pitcher on three days' rest gets hit hard early they have a good enough offense to get back/stay in the game.

Turns out there are some things George Steinbrenner's money can't buy. I just never thought one of those things would be a fourth starter.

The Yankees have been struggling over the last couple of years because Steinbrenner's money couldn't buy a legitimate #1 or #2 starter...much less a quality fourth starter. Really, not having a great fourth starter tends to be the norm for a lot of baseball teams...granted teams in the World Series tend to have decent fourth starters, but generally even good teams tend to not have incredibly effective, high quality fourth starters that just HAVE to get a start in a crucial Game 4 of the World Series. As far as the Yankees go, there is a dramatic fall off from the first three starters to the 4th starter so starting a fourth starter in the series may not be a good idea.

For those who think a four man rotation is the best, I am not arguing with you, I am just saying if you have a fourth starter named Chad Gaudin then a three man rotation is your best move. Yes, I realize the Phillies started Joe Blanton two nights ago over Cliff Lee on three days rest...but that didn't turn out too well did it? Blanton didn't pitch very poorly but the Phillies didn't win the game. Same thing for those who were freaking out over Mariano Rivera pitching too many innings in Game 2 and then pitching again Games 3 and 4. Brad Lidge was well-rested and that didn't turn out well for the Phillies either.

Girardi had every reason to believe Burnett would pitch well on three days' rest last night, simply based on his past performance on short rest. It's almost like it doesn't matter how much rest a pitcher gets which determines the pitcher's effectiveness, within reason, it's how good of a pitcher that pitcher actually is which determines his effectiveness.

The planet's richest baseball team forgot to purchase a No. 4 starting pitcher.

False, they didn't forget they mainly tried to use their farm system and guys who were reclamation projects. Even the Yankees can't buy a player at every starting rotation spot. Let's look at the graveyard of 4th pitchers the Yankees tried to find for this specific team:

Chien-Mang Wang: Is he still alive? I saw someone that looked like him in the dugout the other night so I assume so.

Sergio Mitre: I am pretty sure he is not alive.

Joba Chamberlain: The Yankees are saving him to pitch up to 200 innings in a couple more years. (One more reasons I don't like the "win" statistic: Joba Chamberlain got the win in Game 4 BECAUSE he gave up a home run to Pedro Feliz. If he hadn't given up the home run the win would have gone to Sabathia. Isn't there another stat we can use in place of the win?)

Chad Gaudin: 6-10, 4.64 ERA, 1.507 WHIP. To be fair he did put up eye popping numbers with the Yankees...he was 2-0, 3.43, 1.452 WHIP.

With options like that is there any question why Joe Girardi went with a three man rotation? Well for Gene W. there certainly is.

He's doing this because his team has a $208 million payroll, but it doesn't have a fourth starter he trusts.

Joe Girardi doesn't control the payroll. He pitches the pitchers that can win games for him. There is a difference in the Yankees having a good fourth starter and a fourth starter worthy of pitching a Game 4 of the World Series that Joe Girardi trusts to win the game.

This is like buying a tank but not having the Parts Department attach the gun turret.

I am not disagreeing. It seems to be working pretty well so far in the World Series, except for last night...which was the first time all postseason the Yankees starter hasn't gone at least 6 innings.

I'll beat the rush and say that if he goes through with it, Girardi will be pushing one managerial button too many.

Accusing Joe Girardi of "pushing one managerial button too many" is not an extreme criticism for a guy who has overmanaged nearly every game of the playoffs. It is assumed by now that Girardi overmanages, so it is expected of him. When he went to talk to Sabathia in the 2nd or 3rd inning of Game 4, I thought he was going to pull Sabathia and match up relievers for the rest of the game, only to discover in the 6th inning he was out of pitchers.

A three-man rotation of Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte looks good on a lineup card, but what it really does is expose a major flaw of the Yankees.

The fact they don't have a fourth starter good enough to start a Game 4 of the World Series is a flaw, but I don't know if it is a major one. It is a flaw in the Yankees but it's not like they had not tried to find a fourth starter they could trust. They are still one win away from winning the World Series and I am sure they will fix this fourth starter problem in the offseason. Here is a question people should be asking...should the Phillies have pitched Blanton in Game 4? It's not like he was their best option out of Moyer or Happ. Granted Joe Blanton didn't pitch poorly in Game 4, but if the Phillies had confidence Cliff Lee could pitch on three days' rest he would be out there. the Phillies could have pitched Happ, Moyer or Blanton in Game 4. In the Phillies case, they have depth but it hasn't paid off for them yet. It is just that the Yankees have that confidence in Burnett, Sabathia, and Pettitte. It's why they paid those three so much money.

But Gaudin, who has yet to make an appearance in this World Series, could be available for Game 5 (in place of Burnett) or, if necessary, Game 6 (in place of Pettitte).

And he still can be. If Pettitte started to struggle mightily I am sure we would see Gaudin in the game very quickly. There is a reason he didn't pitch last night in relief of Burnett. I am tired of Gene W. making me defend the Yankees on this issue.

If I were Girardi, I'd present Pettitte with the lineup card as a gift, thank him for the go-ahead victory and tell him he's made his last start of this postseason.

Ok, now I am confused. Who would start Game 7 of the World Series if no Yankee pitchers pitch on short rest? Under Gene W.'s four man rotation shouldn't it be:

Game 1/5: Sabathia
Game 2/6: Burnett
Game 3/7: Pettitte
Game 4: Gaudin

Basically what Gene W. is writing is that it is PERFECTLY FINE for CC Sabathia to pitch on three days rest but not Burnett and Pettitte. So he's not really against a three man rotation, he is just against Pettitte and Burnett pitching on three days rest. I am not a huge Andy Pettitte fan, nor have I ever been, but I don't want Chad Gaudin pitching as many World Series games as Andy Pettitte if I am Joe Girardi.

Pettitte ground his way to an 8-5 win, but to think he can return on three days' rest for a possible Game 6 is pushing it, especially at his age

I understand this but he has all off season to rest and if he can pitch just 5 innings then Girardi can bring in Gaudin or any other reliever for the rest of the game. Girardi is taking a chance but he is not completely winging this. If Pettitte starts stinking Yankee Stadium up then Girardi can immediately put Gaudin in the game. It's not like Girardi has no options if Pettitte struggles.

Of the three short-rest starters, the choice of Sabathia is the only one Girardi can justify. Sabathia is 4-2 with a 2.11 ERA in six career starts on three days' rest.

Except for the fact AJ Burnett was 3-0 with a 1.64 ERA on three days' rest prior to last night. That seemed like a little justification for Girardi to pitch him on three days' rest. It didn't turn out well, but that also can be a result of the fact the Phillies have good hitters and Burnett was sort of due for a blowup (Have I mentioned I don't trust Burnett?).

Burnett is 3-0 with a 1.64 ERA on short rest. He threw 108 pitches in the Game 2 win in New York and was dominant. But you're still asking him to do something Monday night that he rarely does:

But when he does do it, he does it well usually. Soooooooooooo, I can fairly safely conclude that pitching him on three days' rest last night was not a bad idea.

Plus, he'll face the Phillies' best pitcher, Cliff Lee, who will be fully rested after his Game 1 masterpiece.

This should not be taken into account when determining who should have started for the Yankees in Games 4, 5, or 6. It's not like Chad Gaudin could have gone pitch-for-pitch in any scenario with Cliff Lee, especially if Cliff Lee if he pitches like he did in Game 1 and 5. The Yankees hitters are responsible for getting hits off Lee and no matter who starts for the Yankees it was going to be hard to hit Lee.

"Well, I mean, this is the World Series," Girardi said. "There is no baseball after the World Series for four or five months, so there will be plenty of time to rest."

We don't want to ruin Andy Pettitte's arm and ruin the rest of his career though! At least that is Gene W.'s line of thinking. Girardi probably knows he doesn't have much pitching depth, but he is trying to win the World Series and this is how he plans on trying to do it.

I am not trying to be insensitive but Pettitte is at the end of his career and there is really no reason to "save" him for another game when he can pitch as well, if not better, as the alternative.
Second-guess.

I guess I find it hard to believe Chad Gaudin could pitch any better than Burnett and Pettitte have pitched on three days' rest. I am not a huge fan of pitchers pitching on short rest but 2 out of the 3 Yankee pitchers have proven they can do it and Gaudin was a great backup for Pettitte if he struggles. I think for this Yankee team a three man rotation is the best strategy to pursue. Gene W. is wrong in my opinion.

-I want to alert everyone that I have stolen money out of my mom's purse and bought Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball." I am through one chapter and it is not horrible quite yet. We all know I am torn at times on Bill Simmons, mostly erring on the "I can't stand this guy" side, but it is pretty clear he tried to put some thought into the book. The foreword by Malcolm Gladwell was pretty unbearable for me, as is the constant stream of Bill describing all the Earth shattering events he saw in Boston Garden growing up...where the crowd stood as one and epic events happened in Boston Garden that could NEVER be repeated anywhere else. Bill has also mentioned how his seats could be seen by those who watched the games on television only about 1,000 times in the first chapter, so it is pretty clear from a young age Bill Simmons desperately wanted to be noticed.

Nearly every event he describes in the first chapter has three different type descriptions by Bill of what happened in Boston Garden:

1. Why the event was awesome.

2. How shaken up/excited the crowd was and what everyone walked like after the event.

3. When/If you could see Bill on television during said event. Let's just say Bill is proud he was on CBS many times over the years.

-Sometimes I feel like stretching my brain a little bit sometimes and doing some stuff on here I don't normally do. I always like to go back on my own to what I had written a year ago on this blog and see if it has any relevance in what we are talking about or what I am doing now. Most of the time it does have some relevance and I think it would be interesting to revisit some old posts because of this. The problem is I have no clue how to do this.

A great example is I noticed I did a MMQB a year ago today exactly and reading through it, I realize the stuff I am criticizing Peter King for is still relevant today, but I am not going to go through and do the MMQB again because I have already done it. It's a bizarre feeling because the MMQB is still relevant today and anyone can go back and read it if they want to...but I still feel like I need to point some of the stuff he wrote out. In feeling my way around this I decided I would re-read the post from a year ago and point out all the things Peter was wrong about one year later or have relevance today still. Doesn't sound this like fun? I know I did MMQB yesterday but I feel like today is a good day to do a MMQB Follow-up. It is going to be great fun so just hang in there. My quotes are in italics (I will do very little of this) and Peter's are in bold italics.

This is not good.

For those that don't like long introductions (which I am horrible about), re-read some of the older stuff I have posted and you get a four word introduction like this. It will be heaven for you. This introduction does sum up the MMQB Era pretty well though.

Look at Sunday's big winners and tell me what they have in common.Baltimore, Tennessee, Arizona, the New York Giants, Atlanta, Indianapolis and New England. Yes, New England, even after an 18-15 loss to the Colts in Indianapolis.

I still think it is great he included New England in the winners even though they lost. Maybe that's a little bit of the "favorite team" feeling I get from Peter now. The one lesson we will all learn after this following up session is that Peter has always been bad. It didn't just happen over the last couple of months.

My take on this week, and the first half of this NFL season, is this: The good teams, and the pleasant surprises, are the teams that plan for the future while trying to win championships today.

This still strikes me as an absolutely idiotic comment to make. Pretty much every single team is trying to plan for the future while winning a championship today. That's the ENTIRE GOAL of running a successful franchise and the good teams do this successfully while the crappy teams don't. This is such an obvious statement.

It's very Peter King-ish to say this.

Dallas (which has gone seven years without drafting a quarterback to develop),

Here Peter was in full-on "I hate Tony Romo because he got injured" mode and felt like a great quarterback in his prime wasn't good enough, that team had to find a backup quarterback that was drafted and DEVELOPED exactly like the Patriots did with Tom Brady and Matt Cassel (and you thought it all wouldn't go back to the Patriots in my and Peter's mind? Really?). Peter was in heat for Matt Cassel at this point in the season and he felt every team had to draft and develop a quarterback. Undrafted free agent quarterbacks who are great quarterbacks and still in their prime need not apply.

New GM Thomas Dimitroff in Atlanta gambled on draft day -- quarterback Matt Ryan over franchise defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey,

Yes, on November 2, 2008 Peter King was still calling Glenn Dorsey a "franchise" defensive tackle. I still don't understand how taking the best quarterback in the draft when your team needs a quarterback desperately was a "gamble." We should just be thankful Peter didn't get angry the Falcons didn't draft a quarterback in the later rounds and develop that quarterback since that was his favorite thing to do at the time.

The Cassel story illustrates why the Bill Belichick/Scott Pioli way is so effective. If we've trusted Cassel to back up Brady, why don't we trust him to play?

Possibly because some quarterbacks are good enough to be backups but not good enough to be everyday starters. I am not saying this is/was true for Matt Cassel but the logic that any quarterback who is good enough to be a backup is also good enough to be a starter is incredibly flawed logic.

If Cassel gets hurt at some point down the stretch, or when he leaves in free-agency after the season, the Patriots will put 2008 third-round pick Kevin O'Connell under center, or use him to back up Brady.

Or the Patriots will waive Kevin O'Connell in August of this year, the Raiders will sign him then waive him, then the Lions will sign him and trade him to the Jets. I know Peter can't predict the future but his "step-by-step Patriots quarterbacking genius progression" took a hit right here.

The quarterback is develop-able. That's the New England mantra. Brady got developed. Cassel got developed. And O'Connell will too.

But he won't be developed by the Patriots. I love being able to go back and throw Peter's words in his face, this is grand. He had some fantastic Patriots quarterback progression that he was absolutely sure of it's accuracy that turned out to not be completely accurate.

Neither the Raiders nor the Lions wanted O'Connell. Granted, those two teams aren't known for shrewd personnel moves but this has to tell us something, right? Of course O'Connell's career passer rating of 73.6 would make JaMarcus Russell envious of him, so maybe the Raiders should have kept him.

Kasay is an original Panther, having kicked in the first game in franchise history in 1995. If he finishes out the contract, he'll have played for the Panthers two years longer than Brett Favre played for the Packers.

Everything has always gone back to Brett Favre for Peter King. Always.

Let's go to my favorite paragraph of wrongness...

But Cassel, 26, will almost certainly not be tagged by the Patriots after the season,

Of course Matt Cassel was tagged as a franchise player. Epic miss #1 by Peter here.

Why? Because the Patriots have a system in place, a system that calls for them to draft players to replace those who leave as rich free-agents. In this case, they'll simply train 2008 third-round pick Kevin O'Connell to replace Cassel

Again, he was cut. Epic miss #2 by Peter.

and some team out there will pay Cassel $7 million or $8 million a year to be their quarterback of the future.

And that is epic miss #3 by Peter. How about the fact Cassel got a 6 year $63 million dollar contract by Patriots co-genius (or he gets credit for being so, even though I think it is all Belichick) Scott Pioli.

15. (tie) New York Jets (5-3). Three-hundredth career pick by Favre, and from the looks of him after the game, he didn't much care.

I guess after you throw 300 interceptions it just becomes habit or at least no big deal.

the Cowboys should have either drafted a decent one in the last couple of years and developed him under an excellent QB coach in Jason Garrett, or acquired a younger one than Johnson, who's 40. This fact absolutely amazes me: The Cowboys have not drafted a quarterback in seven years.

I am still a little befuddled at why the Cowboys had to draft a quarterback and develop that quarterback when they had Tony Romo on the team. I know Brad Johnson was starting for the Cowboys at this point because Romo was injured, but if he is good enough to be a backup, he might as well be good enough to be a starter. Isn't that Peter's logic?

I know every team wants a good backup, but why waste a pick on developing a backup when you have a 28 year old starter who had posted a passer rating low for the season in 6 games (when this column was written) of 82.6 and had 4 games of over 103 in passer rating at this point? The Cowboys seem to have done a decent job without drafting a quarterback and they shouldn't draft one good enough to develop into a starter because the last thing Dallas needed is a quarterback controversy to go along with all the other problems the 2008 team had.

Anybody coaching defense in the NFL would be Belichick-like if he could call "Mulligan'' on his worst five plays each week.

I think we can all agree King Peter is not Bill Simmons, but the constant references to New England his columns is a little overwhelming at times. He mentions them or Belichick 10 separate times in the column.

It's a little depressing I am saying similar things about Peter King one year later.

The Way We Were

Jeff Garcia vs. Fran Tarkenton.

No one would think of Garcia as the heir to Tarkenton, who retired in 1978 as the NFL's all-time passing yardage leader with 47,003.

Remember this horrible MMQB category? This is where Peter would compare a player in present day to a Hall of Fame player or a high quality player from years ago in the NFL. Generally the comparisons were about as good as Jeff Garcia being like Fran Tarkenton. Needless to say this was dropped by Peter at the end of the year.

e. I don't watch much college football, but that was one riveting game Saturday between Texas and Texas Tech. And as my favorite college scout Chavous said after watching 6-2, 205-pound Graham Harrell's typically ridiculous 35-of-52, 476-yard performance to shock top-ranked Texas: "He's a lot more polished than [former Tech spread QBs] B.J. Symons, Kliff Kingsbury, Sonny Cumbie or Cody Hodges. He's poised. I think he'll play on Sundays. He'll probably be a mid-round pick with a solid postseason.''

The only Sunday Graham Harrell will be playing is if the CFL has Sunday games. Looks like Harrell may have been polished but he also went undrafted. This doesn't stop Peter "The Expert Scout" King from giving his misguided and incredibly inaccurate opinion.

I don't know. He looked better than that to me, and if his size is legit and he throws the 15-yard out with zip, he's certainly got an NFL future.

Again, Graham Harrell was undrafted and now plays in the CFL and couldn't get a job as the quarterback for the Cleveland Browns in the preseason. There is a reason Peter's job is to stalk NFL athletes and try to be their friends and his job doesn't involve scouting or personnel of any type. This is one of those reasons.

h. Rookie quarterbacks Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan just beat JaMarcus Russell 53-10 in an eight-day period. Not to pile on Russell or anything.

Remember not a year before this Peter was describing Russell as more accurate than Vince Young and inferring he would be a great quarterback in the NFL. How the not-so-mighty have fallen in Peter's mind.

I even made fun of JaMarcus Russell back then.

JaMarcus Russell sucks, nearly everyone can agree on this fact.

Read somewhere the other day Starbucks is trying to figure out why they're struggling in a lot of stores, and why Dunkin Donuts and other coffee places are making inroads on the big boys. I don't think it's the cost of a $3.70 latte. I really don't.

Peter was still clueless a year ago about what people who don't make 6 figures would buy and why many people won't buy a coffee that is nearly 4 dollars.

Kids are coming later and later. We had our last at 9:42 p.m. That's 18 minutes shy of my bedtime, kids -- and it's an unwanted interruption of Family Guy on the DVR.

Yes. He bitched "Family Guy" got interrupted when he was watching it on DVR. Peter King has not gotten any more bearable in the last year.

I have given up on pretending I won't do TMQ tomorrow.