Giggsy You know what, King? You'd be right, if it had actually happened. If Torre had actually been fired, it would be a huge story, but he hasn't actually been fired yet, has he?

No, and so I guess we disagree on this one. I'm comfortable with my judgment.

Roger Clemens retiring would be a huge story, too. ... Alex Rodriguez changing teams would be a huge story. ... Those would both be huge stories, but you didn't write about either of those things. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I assume you didn't write about either of these things because they haven't actually happened and there's time to write about them when they do happen.

That's part of it. But a small part. Those stories are about things that everyone has known for quite some time are likely to happen. (Or not happen -- either way, a decision point is coming.) They're both drawn-out, in-process stories, and nothing is happening in them at the moment. The Torre story just broke, and something happened Monday -- the Yankees lost the game that puts Steinbrenner's ultimatum in play, and Torre, again, one of the all-time great managers who is on a run of success that has rarely been matched in baseball history, reacted to it.

If you had somehow been able to get on 20 crowded buses in 20 cities on Monday, what do you think you would have overheard people talking about the most? Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Joe Torre, or those Indians?

I've been in this business a long time, and while that doesn't mean my news judgment's always keen and I'm always right, I am right on this one: You'd have heard about Joe Torre, except in Cleveland.

You could argue that that's because people everywhere have been brainwashed by the media, and we'd just disagree on that too in this case.

bsgroup The ONLY reason this conversation (dissecting the Yankees losing yet another first round playoff series) is taking place is AROD'S slugging percentage. He was o-for throughout the series (that's no hits with men on base for you neophiles).

Emphasis added.

With men on base, Jeter went 1-for-6 in the series, with a one-run single with the bases loaded in Game 4 his only hit. He hit into three double plays.

Rodriguez went 0-for-5 with two walks, one intentional. In the one-run loss in Game 2, he struck out three times with men on base. He also had a leadoff single and scored a run in the Game 3 win, something Jeter never did.

The Yankees lost one game by nine runs and another by four, and in that second one A-Rod came to bat once with men on base: Two on, one out in the first, he struck out. If A-Rod had hit a home run in that at-bat, and everything else happened the same ("The ONLY reason ..."), the Yankees would have lost by one. Jeter came to bat three times with men on base in that game. Bases loaded, two out: Single. One on, two outs, lineout. First and third, one out: Double-play. A homer in the first one, or a double in the first and a single in the third, or ... etc. ... and the game would have been tied.

Why am I talking about Jeter? Because while A-Rod sucked, so did Jeter. So did the pitching (27 runs allowed in four games, for a nifty 6.75 runs per game, which would reasonably result in a winning percentage around .250). I just wanted to show how utterly absurd this line of thinking, which is incredibly common, is.

The Yankees got their asses absolutely handed to them, top to bottom, but it's all A-Rod's fault. Give me a break.