The Yankees are evil bastards, but they are smart evil bastards. They're doing the right thing as far as winning in concerned. And why should they concern themselves with injuring Schilling when he's taking the risk of even going out there?

I totally agree with you Dave.

I was surprised that Jeter didn't lead off with a bunt to start Game One. Schilling's health was a question mark then and an early bunt would have given the Yankees some early info.

If I was Joe Torre, I'd be calling for bunts early and often tonight.

Agree that the Yankees are fully within their sportsmanship "rights" to bunt 27 straight times if they want.

Disagree with the equation of Schilling with Bonds and Sheffield. Somehow using a legal (I'm assuming it's legal) numbing agent one time doesn't seem to me the equal of using steroids on a repeated basis (if they in fact did so; I don't know). Even if you're not that concerned about steroids, they're still illegal and (presumably) the numbing agent is not.

There are probably more than a few Yankees and Red Sox fans who could use a numbing agent too, no?

I'd imagine that performance-enhancing drugs are all specifically defined, and that whatever painkiller Curt is using isn't one of them.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but what about Sheffield's shots?

What about Damon's chiropractic neck adjustments?

Pain killers are extremely common and certainly not against the rules.

The Yankees are free to bunt as much as they want, but I would think Red Sox fans would root for that. Injury or no injury, I would think the Yankees would hurt themselves by bunting. A bunt is hardly an automatic hit, even taking the pitcher out of the equation, and if Jeter, Arod, and Sheffield want to limit themselves to singles, more power to them. None of the Yankees weak hitters run particularly well, so I doubt this strategy makes the difference, unless Schilling reinjures himself. If they are just going after cheap singles, then that strategy plays into the Red Sox hands.

As for the pain-killer, the whole performance-enhancing drug thing points out how it is a misnomer. I too am confused about what to classify. Andro is now banned, and it is a legal suppliment (I think). They have created so many rationalizations for something that just feels fishy that they do not hold up under close scrutiny. Performance enhancing refers to everything from broccoli to creatine to anabolic steroids. Long term health? Has anyone seen pro football players, and I doubt what Varitek and Posada have done over the last two nights (not to mention 20 years) won't catch up with their knees at some point. They claim illegal, but the USOC for one has dozens of banned substances that are legal, and I think andro is still legal or was until very recently. I don't like steroids, but the arguments against them, especially in terms of classification, are hard to put together.

Remember Jim Abbott? When he was pitching in college, one team tried to bunt off of him six times in a row. They stopped after the sixth straight out.

Not saying Schill will be able to necessarily rise to the occasion tonight and field them... but I think it's a perfectly legitimate strategy.

I remember Jim Abbott very well. What was impressive about Abbott fielding was that after you watched him for a few games you forgot that he had only 1 hand. You talked about his ability to pitch and field independently of his weakness, because he overcame that weakness.

It could very well be that the bunt strategy fails tonight. Like I said in the post, it's only worth trying if he is effective off the mound.

You are to the Yankees what Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson are to the Republican Party, a partisan hack. Get over the fact that he didn't want you quoting him and quit defending unsportsmanlike tactics.

I find the all the quibbling on the subject of sportsmanship quite humorous.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the rivalry that has produced some of the worst violence in baseball history? I'm thinking the Yankees bullpen spiking someone, Pedro Martinez throwing for people's heads (just because previous hitters have jumped on his now paltry 85 mph fastballs, and average off-speed stuff), Don Zimmer charging down members of the rival Sox. PLEASE, SOMEONE TELL ME: WHEN HAS CIVILITY BEEN AN ISSUE?!

In this case, it's the Yankees who are pushing the envelope of sportsmanship. But is there any Red Sox fan who's willing to come forward and tell me with a straight face that Terry Francona would not employ the exact same strategy against an ailing Mike Mussina? Seriously, if you're such great fans, you know that in all reality, the Sox would bunt just as readily as the Yankees.

Which brings us to another point: THE REASON YOU HATE EACH OTHER SO MUCH IS BECAUSE YOU'RE SO SIMILAR! It makes perfect sense. It is easily observable in the football realm. Take a look at Pittsburgh and Cleveland. We look at these two cities, and what do we see? Industrial towns who really love their football (and their liquer). They're about the same size, located near water, and are within a few hours drive of each other (sort of like New York and Boston, huh?). It's all a matter of who's the better of these drinking towns with a football problem. I'm not gonna go into all the specific instances of simlarity between NYC and Beantown, but I think you get my point.

On the issue off performance enhancement, how can you equate the consumption of pain medication with steroid use? This whole argument has always been about intent, and it always will be about intent. Pain medication is taken to ease discomfort that a player wouldn't normally have. It isn't a matter of enhancement, so much as equalization. Performance enhancers are taken by healthy people with the intent of getting ahead of their peers. While their effects are technically the same, I would hope that any reasonable person would be able to differentiate these two scenarios.

????

I do think steroids should be banned (as far as MLB is concerned.) Now as to what should be legal and illegal, I don't have a bright line test, but to me steroids to bulk up are a kind of cheating, altering the body in a way that's sort of like altering a bat (cork) or a ball (spitball). But with more long term health concerns.

Bunting on Schilling is a perfectly legitimate tactic, the Yankees aren't trying to injure him (unless they throw their bats at him), but if he puts more wear and tear on his ankle, that's his problem. Swinging away is a much better strategy though.

This is absurd. While the universal assertion that the eastiest way to win is to exploit an opponents weakness may be true and valid, but can you honestly, with a straight face and in good conscience, claim that purposefully promoting a career ending injury to win, no matter the stakes, is in any way a sportsmanlike, classy or justifiable strategy? Why not just kidnap Schilling's mother to get him out of the country and the game? Bunting during game situations is one thing, and a smart move under the circumstances, but ceaselessly intending harm on another athlete, that's criminal. Evil Empire anyone?

OK, where in that article does it quote a Yankee saying "we want him to get hurt"?
Schilling is not going to be quick off the mound to field or cover first, that is what the Yankees would be taking advantage of. And perfectly sportsmanlike, despite what the Columbia Union says. That blog sounds like a whiney fan.

The injury to Schilling is there. The Yankees aren't trying to make it worse, they're trying to exlpoit it. There's a big difference.

Bunting against a guy who can't field makes perfect sense. Kidnapping has nothing to do with baseball.

I agree that BOS should hope and pray the Yankees bunt a lot. Not making Schilling throw a lot of pitches and hoping to do nothing except get a single that won't drive in a run from 2B...yeah, excellent strategy. I would choke as if to bunt though, to draw in 1B/3B.

You know what's really unsportsmanlike? Hitting HR's and striking out the opposing batters. That's just mean.

Does anyone have a positive citation for this story, besides the Columbia-Union? I couldn't find any mention of this on the ESPN web site. It seems implausible to me that any Yankees would tell an ESPN reporter that their strategy was going to be exploit Schilling's bad ankle (even if it were true).

No way is it a poor sportsmanship. . .that is like putting a right fielder with a gimpy leg out on the field and saying "he's hurt so you can't hit it to right field."

However, it is certainly not "classy" in any sense of the word.

No, but it doesn't demonstrate a lack of class, either.

One might even say it's class-neutral (though Marx would disagree that any baseball strategy can be class-neutral)

"purposefully promoting a career ending injury"

If Schilling's ankle is in such bad shape that fielding a bunt would risk a career ending injury, he should not be on the mound. If he can't field his position, exploit it.

Tell ya what. The Yanks won't bunt if the Red Sox promise not to score any runs.

Hey guys,

There's been no response in the comments of the Columbia-Union posting to my request for some more information about this story. As far as I'm concerned, it's bogus until proven true.