Great Moments in A-Rod hate

45 Comments

If you thought that Kevin Kernan column I just linked was bad you haven’t read Bob Klapisch’s A-Rod column yet. Really, I feel like I should apologize to Kernan right now because compared to Klapisch’s his was like a Murrow op-ed.

Klapisch’s is like a parody of every A-Rod thing you’ve ever read. He says, with a straight face, that the Yankees are probably better off without A-Rod. Which, hey, I’ll grant that A-Rod is unlikely to be his old MVP self, but when the Yankees starting third baseman is Jayson Nix, such a claim is more about wish fulfillment than baseball analysis. A hobbled A-Rod still hit 18 homers and got on base at a .353 clip last year.

But what’s more comical about it is Kapisch’s armchair psychology of A-Rod. He diagnoses a “psychological dependence on PEDs” on A-Rod’s part. Then:

That’s where the need for PEDs comes in. Drill down deep enough and you find nothing but insecurity in A-Rod’s algorithms, the need to be loved, hailed, praised, all of which require a shot of steroids or a dab of HGH — anything that would guarantee A-Rod what he lacked most: approval.

It’s amazing to me that Bob Klapisch has maintained such a successful journalism career while simultaneously obtaining his psychiatry degree and spending all of those sessions with Rodriguez. A true renaissance man.

Or, maybe, Klapisch is just doing bullcrap armchair psychological analysis. In which case he can’t begrudge me for diagnosing him with A-Rod Derangement Syndrome. You see, when someone covers someone he dislikes for so long, one begins to feel guilt and shame for not spending his time around people he enjoys more. Thus, the mind tricks the subject into turning the dreary pursuit into something more noble and important so one does not feel he is wasting his energy on something as petty as hate. Now he has to literally save people and institutions from a MONSTER! He has a noble calling, now, to protect us from someone who is just as bad as, say, a serial killing psychopath!

Hahaha, I know. That’s silly:

This might be A-Rod’s dream, but as of Monday, the Yankees believe otherwise. They just added Freddy Krueger to the roster.

Oh. Well then.

Zack Cozart thinks the way the Rays have been using Sergio Romo is bad for baseball

Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
11 Comments

The Rays started Sergio Romo on back-to-back days and if that sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Romo, of course, was the star closer for the Giants for a while, helping them win the World Series in 2012 and ’14. He’s been a full-time reliever dating back to 2006, when he was at Single-A.

In an effort to prevent lefty Ryan Yarbrough from facing the righty-heavy top of the Angels’ lineup (Zack Cozart, Mike Trout, Justin Upton), Romo started Saturday’s game, pitching the first inning before giving way to Yarbrough in the second. Romo struck out the side, in fact. The Rays went on to win 5-3.

The Rays did it again on Sunday afternoon, starting Romo. This time, he got four outs before giving way to Matt Andriese. Romo walked two without giving up a hit while striking out three. The Angels managed to win 5-2 however.

Despite Sunday’s win, Cozart wasn’t a happy camper with the way the Rays used Romo. Via Fabian Ardaya of The Athletic, Cozart said, “It was weird … It’s bad for baseball, in my opinion … It’s spring training. That’s the best way to explain it.”

It’s difficult to see merit in Cozart’s argument. It’s not like the Rays were making excessive amounts of pitching changes; they used five on Saturday and four on Sunday. The games lasted three hours and three hours, 15 minutes, respectively. The average game time is exactly three hours so far this season. I’m having trouble wondering how else Cozart might mean the strategy is bad for baseball.

It seems like the real issue is that Cozart is afraid of the sport changing around him. The Rays, like most small market teams, have to find their edges in slight ways. The Rays aren’t doing this blindly; the strategy makes sense based on their opponents’ starting lineup. The idea of valuing on-base percentage was scoffed at. Shifting was scoffed at and now every team employs them to some degree. Who knows if starting a reliever for the first three or four outs will become a trend, but it’s shortsighted to write it off at first glance.