Valmoose

(David Weinfeld) . . . thinks this team is ridden with weaknesses and that Jimy Williams is using smoke and mirrors to eke out win after win. True poppycock. I, on the other hand, think that this team is the most talented and well-balanced Red Sox team of the last 50 years, and possibly since the championship years of the 1910s, and that this is what should also have happened last year. The difference so far is that this season, our GM has further Jimy-proofed the team. Even when Jimy puts out the least likely to succeed players in the least likely to succeed situations, they are managing to come through, which they didn't always do last year.

ART: I don't believe Valmoose has accurately represented David's position -- David, I think, is merely sick and tired of the never-ending criticism of Jimy Williams in some corners (like Valmoose's), no matter what actually happens on the field -- and I certainly hope he hasn't accurately represented his own. I hope he's dealing in his customary hyperbole because, as well as the Sox have played over the first 2 1/2 weeks and as good a season as I (and many others) think they're going to have, to say they're "the most talented and well-balanced Red Sox team of the last 50 years" is a stretch.

I would say the Sox are currently below league average offensively at shortstop (until Nomar returns, of course), third base (where Shea Hillenbrand's entire offensive value is represented by his batting average) and left field (when Troy O'Leary plays). They'll get better at shortstop, obviously, but I don't think either Hillenbrand or O'Leary are quality hitters. In addition, I would say Brian Daubach will provide no more than league-average production at first base. That's four positions where the Sox are no better than, and are in some cases below, average, which is certainly inconsistent with the notion that this is the "most talented" Sox team since World War II.

The Sox are currently being carried by a) their astounding pitching/defense, and b) the bats of Manny Ramirez, Carl Everett and Jose Offerman. (Not to mention a rather favorable early schedule.) Now, don't get me wrong: That might be enough, especially when Nixon and Varitek pick it up a bit. The Sox' core of stars is impressive, and, as such, the supporting cast doesn't need to be overwhelmingly strong. But I'd hardly call that "well-balanced", and I can recall Red Sox teams -- some in my lifetime -- that had no regulars as weak as Shea Hillenbrand and Troy O'Leary (not to mention the three-headed monster filling in for Garciaparra at shortstop).

The pitching staff, on the other hand, is the deepest and most talented I've ever seen in Boston -- I still can't get over Tim Wakefield, who could start for about 75% of the teams in baseball, as the long reliever -- and that dual offensive and defensive strength might be what Valmoose is talking about. Even at that, though, it doesn't add up to "most talented and well-balanced". There are too many holes in the lineup to be the "most talented", and too much dependence on a core of players to be "most well-balanced". My picks in the "talent" category would be the teams of the late '40s and mid-to-late '70s, and the 1986 American League champions were most well-balanced Red Sox team I've ever seen.

Yet, the 2001 Sox' strengths -- a power-based offense, deep pitching -- are the strengths that mean the most over the long season. I may agree with Valmoose's unstated conclusion. I just don't agree with his adjectives.

Portugee Joe

I belong to another forum -- a political one that is clearly defined in its purpose and not middle-of-the-road. We have quite a few members who support the other side and post regularly. They show genuine interest in debating the issues, presenting their opinions, etc., without insults, threats, etc. Every once in a while a supporter of the other side joins the forum with the sole purpose of causing trouble -- posting insults, threats, lies, etc. We call them 'disrupters' and they are usually kicked out very quickly. (We also sometimes have supporters who cross the line. They, too, are quickly dispatched from the forum.) In my opinion, (Louis DiLullo) sits somewhere between the two. He isn't quite a disrupter worthy of being kicked out, but he has come close some times. He can still be a Yankee fan and be valuable member of this forum, but if he crosses the line then he doesn't belong here. And any member of this forum who goes to his YankeeTradition website and acts like a 'disrupter' deserves the same fate.. . .

ART: Somebody asked the other day why I like Louis DiLullo so much and address his points so often in the column. There are a couple of reasons:

1) He's a consumptive Yankee fan and I truly admire that level of passion. If you visit his site, you'll see materials that obviously required great effort to locate and scan into digital form. Plus, he addressees historical issues (regarding the Yankees, of course) that are interesting and, at their best, thought-provoking.

2) When he posts here, he has a knack for presenting (what we think are) outrageous points of view with just enough skill to make his points a) marginally defensible and b) eminently debatable. He sparks comment, and that's always a good thing.

3) Plus, what's better than a little Red Sox-Yankee arguing? And if you're going to argue, it's nice to have someone with a brain on the other side of the table.

As Portugee Joe points out, Louis adroitly straddles the line between "provoker" and "disrupter".

Now. That said . . .

You can't come here and say some of the things Louis says and not expect there to be fallout. If he wants to accuse Pedro Martinez of being so selfish that he'll prevent the Red Sox from ever winning, or attempt to "temper the giddiness" of the Manny Ramirez signing by cherry-picking a bunch of stats to prove that Ramirez hits poorly against the Yankees -- when, in fact, he ignored other stats that showed Ramirez absolutely crushes certain high-profile members of the New York staff -- then he has to expect reaction. A number of people (Allan Wood, Chris Gifford, YardSox, He Hate Me, Warren Rosenberg) have gravitated to yankeetradition.com and are pulling what we might call "Louises", starting threads like "Rod Beaton tells it like it is about Yankee development of pitchers" and "Rob Neyer Gets It Right About Soriano". (These, of course, are in response to such Louis threads on Your Turn as "Diamond Jim Donaldson, On The Mark Again" and "Who Was Booing Manny Last Night?") That's the way it goes. If you dish it out, you'd best be prepared to take it.

But there's no reason to get personal, and certainly no reason to attempt to harm or damage the very hard work he's done on his site. Especially since so many of the posters -- not all, but a lot of them -- on yankeetradition.com are sensible, likeable folks.

I sense we've lost Louis for a while. His Red Sox posts on yankeetradition.com are getting increasingly shrill and hysterical, and we're all at our worst when we begin to display those qualities. I think we all need to cool off.

But I still like you, Louis, and you're always welcome as far as I'm concerned. My friend Lou and I are going to the Stadium on Sunday. If you're around, I'd love to buy you a beer.