Joel Sherman overreacts - again - to the Yankees

Didn't have time to write this yesterday, but I'm still a bit irked at Joel Sherman's column from Tuesday's New York Post taking fans to task for complaining too much about the team's problems. I guess he's worried they're stealing his job!

After all, this is the writer who wondered after Sunday's game "if a team that relies so much on the long ball could face problems in the postseason when better pitchers are more likely to defy homers." The Yankees had just beaten Red Sox ace Josh Beckett with five homers, and Sherman's trying to find the downside? Sheesh.

It's funny, though, how the writer who on Sunday compared the Yankees-Red Sox weekend to October 2004 now suggests that fans overreact! He complained about hearing sports radio callers gripe about A.J. Burnett and Jorge Posada, and about emails regarding "the stupidity of having Joba Chamberlain pitch on such long rest." Well, given Joba's lousy pitching last night, the emailers might have had a point.

As for A.J. and Jorge, he writes that:

Posada has had an uneasy relationship with a lot of pitchers and, in general, it was not a detriment to winning. But will Burnett prove as tough-minded as former combatants such as Orlando Hernandez? Or will Burnett let distrust of the catcher-pitcher dynamic impact his results?

Guess we know whose side of the argument Sherman is on! After all, he's the writer who admitted to defending Posada in his own clubhouse with the "count the rings" argument when pitchers argued with him.

I agree with Sherman that there are times some Yankee fans overreact to perceived problems. But the Posada/Burnett argument isn't one of them. It's a heck of a lot more relevant to this team's October chances than them supposedly hitting too many homers!

Sherman tried to explain his point of view this way:

...when it comes to the Yankees, the fan base will never be completely at peace until Roy Halladay is the No. 5 starter and the loss column reads "zero." Of course, guys just like me are to blame. We have been Steinbrenner-ized, as well.

The given with the Yankees is that they are really good. So my theory, as a columnist, is to examine what would keep them from being great, since greatness is the objective for this franchise. When you cover the Royals, you try to figure out how they get good. When you cover the Yanks, you try to figure out what keeps them from the Canyon of Heroes.

See, I disagree with Sherman's whole job description here. Are there times that it's appropriate to worry about this team? Of course - the fact that Joba appears to be backsliding again is one of them. But what's annoying is not when Sherman writes about real flaws on this team, but when he seems to look for stuff to complain about.

The thing is, I think Sherman is a really good analyst in a lot of ways. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time reading him at all. And he also takes people to task who need to be taken to task - like his excellent column slamming Omar Minaya today.

Just wish he would keep things in perspective. That's all.

What do you think? Leave us a comment!