Oh, well, of course, Cashman has something to do with it. He can’t be totally blameless, and as the guy with the “GM” after his name, he’s got to take some heat.

It’s just that I think he gets his share of the blame and Torre’s and Steinbrenner’s and Trost’s and Levine’s and the farm system’s…

Some criticism of Cashman is justified, especially where misjudgments and mistakes can be directly linked to him, or when decisions are made that can be reasonably judged mistakes at the time they are made even by amateur observers such as myself (Here I am thinking of the signings of Farnsworth, Jaret Wright, and Steve Karsay, to name three examples off the top of my head.)

I just think it gets way out of hand sometimes. Especially when certain parties go out of their way to look under every rock, and yell, “AHA, Cashman!!”, and to perform semiotic analysis on every statement he makes, or which is made by someone else about him.

If he Yanks in 60, O’s in 69, etc., were better, why didn’t they win? Bad luck? If a team is so much better, why would they need luck to win?
====================================
Because the better team doesn’t always play better on a particular day, or in a particular short series.

Look, this is preposterous, OK?

Here’s one last example: In the last week of this past regular season, the Phillies played a series at home against the Braves. The Phillies were only 1 1/2 games ahead of the Mets with 6 to play when the series started. The Braves were dead and buried in 4th place, 19 games behind the Phillies.

The Braves sent their best starter Jair Jurrjens out in Game 1. The Phillies won, 6-2, moved 20 games ahead of the Braves and 2.5 up on the Mets with 5 to play.

So, in the next two games, the Braves send out Mike Hampton, once an excellent pitcher, but now a shell of his old self, rehabbing yet another major injury, and a Jo-Jo Reyes, a rookie struggling to find himself on the big league level, and not having a good time of it. Opposing them were soon-to-be postseason hero Cole Hamels, and Brett Myers.

With the Phillies at home, facing a miserable opponent, facing two poor (at best) starters, having everything to play for, one game started by their ace and red hot at the time (they had won 3 in a row and 10 of 11 after the 1st game victory), the Phillies lost both games.

Now, does taking 2 of 3 from the Phillies in that spot really PROVE the Braves were the better team? No; what it proves is that expectations in baseball are not firm enough to believe that the “best team is the team that wins”.

On that day, for that game, the team that wins is the better team, but it is perfectly reasonable that in a short series, in the postseason, an objectively weaker team (as measured by quality of performance indicators, or by long-term multi-season performance) can, in fact, play better over the short haul and win.

It happens a lot. All you have to do to see it is look.

But, the Yankees and Indians did not play the same teams, for the same amount of games, in 1997, did they?

All – really – yes, I’ve been pushing some buttons with this one – just to show that it’s not cut and dried that Cashman had nothing to do with the Yankees lack of rings since 2002…make that to show that a case could be made, to counter all claims, that provides some basis to consider that Cashman’s failures come into play.

I’ll stop now. Thanks for playing.

Ever hear of strength of schedule?
———–
Yeah, I have, in football.

In MLB, within their division, the teams played each other 12 times. Outside of their division, they played each other 11 times. Doesn’t make that big of a difference, if anything, it emphasizes the point that the Yanks were a better team.

One other thing;

RS
NYY: 891
CLE: 868

RA
NYY: 688
CLE: 815

Yanks had better pitching, better hitting and better defense.

When they played head-to-head, that year, based on the record, I would say that they were evenly matched.

If he Yanks in 60, O’s in 69, etc., were better, why didn’t they win? Bad luck? If a team is so much better, why would they need luck to win?

=====

Are you being serious Steve or are you just being contrary for the sake of it? The 1998 Yankees arguably one of the best teams in history and the pinnacle of the Gene Michael era teams were 5-6 against Anaheim that year. Were the 1998 Angels a better team then the 1998 Yankees?

~~A 96 win team is better than an 86 win team.~~

Ever hear of strength of schedule?

Because there were better teams that beat them.
—–
?

A 96 win team is better than an 86 win team.

The 1997 Indians had the 4th best record in the league. 4TH. Even if you give them the wins in the postseason, that puts them @ 2nd, tied with the Yanks.

~~And you STILL haven’t explained why the Yanks weren’t able to win in 1997, despite being composed of the same players in 1996 & 98, nor have you explained why the Red Sox were unsuccessful in 05, 06, & 08~~

Because there were better teams that beat them.

Hey, I’m not saying that the Michael/Watson Yankees were the greatest team ever and should have never lost. I’m just saying that they won what they deserved – 4 rings in 6 years. And, the Cashman Yankees won what they deserved – 0 rings in 6 years.

If he Yanks in 60, O’s in 69, etc., were better, why didn’t they win? Bad luck? If a team is so much better, why would they need luck to win?
——–
You tell me; it’s the Yankees that believe in “ghosts” & “mystique” & “aura”