• Yanks’ Most & Least Dominant Teams (Take II)

    Posted by on March 30th, 2009 · Comments (22)

    This evening, I was playing around with the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia, taking a look at each of the Yankees 106 seasons to date…

    …and…

    I started to rank the teams, considering a balance of offensive and pitching dominance, and this is what I came up with:

    Rank	YEAR	RCAA	RSAA
    1	1927	338	117
    2	1939	289	92
    3	1936	287	57
    4	1937	181	144
    5	1931	298	10
    6	1932	279	17
    7	1953	220	52
    8	1998	168	102
    9	1928	275	-17
    10	1942	168	86
    11	1921	152	84
    12	1938	76	149
    13	1934	166	58
    14	1957	154	65
    15	2002	143	76
    16	1941	150	66
    17	1955	136	78
    18	1930	344	-106
    19	1997	134	78
    20	1961	169	42
    21	1999	170	40
    22	1954	149	52
    23	1956	142	57
    24	1977	146	51
    25	1952	140	54
    26	2003	142	50
    27	1958	95	97
    28	2007	160	30
    29	1947	179	11
    30	1948	121	68
    31	1985	154	32
    32	1935	127	57
    33	1926	172	10
    34	1920	107	72
    35	1929	178	1
    36	2006	185	-14
    37	1980	108	61
    38	1950	127	40
    39	1933	253	-72
    40	1951	149	11
    41	1923	93	62
    42	1962	162	-8
    43	1943	129	24
    44	1976	111	42
    45	1994	145	6
    46	1963	73	77
    47	1960	144	5
    48	1949	80	68
    49	1946	95	42
    50	1978	54	77
    51	2005	138	-11
    52	1940	79	44
    53	1964	38	79
    54	1986	85	32
    55	1922	24	89
    56	1924	77	36
    57	1981	30	75
    58	1944	56	44
    59	2001	20	71
    60	1983	70	16
    61	1984	99	-13
    62	1975	22	61
    63	1945	51	30
    64	1993	148	-54
    65	1959	93	-17
    66	1974	49	18
    67	1970	47	18
    68	2000	7	54
    69	1904	13	45
    70	2004	112	-41
    71	1996	-4	60
    72	1972	102	-36
    73	1973	-18	71
    74	2008	16	28
    75	1979	16	20
    76	1995	-3	36
    77	1971	48	-15
    78	1910	1	18
    79	1916	-10	18
    80	1969	-30	23
    81	1968	-41	35
    82	1906	-55	60
    83	1987	12	-14
    84	1982	13	-14
    85	1909	5	-27
    86	1992	-1	-15
    87	1903	-6	-22
    88	1966	43	-32
    89	1905	28	-32
    90	1965	-44	31
    91	1918	22	-53
    92	1911	-56	40
    93	1925	-29	-27
    94	1917	-83	26
    95	1919	-63	81
    96	1915	-37	-27
    97	1988	82	-71
    98	1914	-59	-12
    99	1989	-10	-64
    100	1967	-48	-31
    101	1907	-68	-21
    102	1991	-54	-41
    103	1908	-30	-117
    104	1990	-82	-68
    105	1913	-109	-42
    106	1912	-97	-83

    This is a somewhat different list than the one I worked up the last time that I had this itch.

    Seeing this, it’s easy to play that “What If?” game and wonder how these teams would do if they had to face each other.

    It would be fun to see someone take the Top 64 teams off this list and match them up March Madness style where the 1927 Yankees would play the 1993 Yankees, in a one-game simulator contest, and the 1939 Yankees play the 1945 Yankees, and the 1936 Yankees play the 1975 Yankees, and so on…until you get down to a Final Four and then a champion for the tournament.

    If anyone wants to take on this project, drop me a note. If you’re serious about it, and willing to document and share your findings, I’d be happy to publish them here and credit you. But, just check with me first…as I would hate for someone to work on this while someone else is already doing it.

    In the meantime, what do you think of these rankings? To be candid, I was not very scientific in my approach – but, I think these are decent rankings. Anything that you agree with here? Anything that you would change? Why?

    My thoughts on this list? Oh, my, to be a Yankees fan in the 1930′s…now, that must have been a blast. Also, it’s interesting, at least to me, to look at the Yankees in what I like to call the “True Cashman Years” (meaning post 2001). Here are those teams:

    Rank	YEAR	RCAA	RSAA
    74	2008	16	28
    28	2007	160	30
    36	2006	185	-14
    51	2005	138	-11
    70	2004	112	-41
    26	2003	142	50
    15	2002	143	76

    Now, those numbers tell a story…

    Comments on Yanks’ Most & Least Dominant Teams (Take II)

    1. Janks-n-Jints
      March 31st, 2009 | 12:38 am

      the “True Cashman Years”

      Now, those numbers tell a story…
      ————————-

      I don’t understand? Are you trying to make a point?

    2. handtius
      March 31st, 2009 | 1:23 am

      With Cash’s #s, I see a rainbow that peaked in 2004 that is on it’s way down (up in rank), with a massive aberration in it from last year. Last year was that perfect storm you keep talking about, where too much went wrong for them to make the post season. It could have been worse if Moose didn’t have the year he had. But I see a trend that is, hopefully, going to get better. Was it 2003-4 when Cash wanted full control without interference from Tampa?

    3. Pat F
      March 31st, 2009 | 2:41 am

      i agree with you that it’s not very scientific, and i also agree with you that it seems like a pretty good list nonetheless. great job.

      one has to wonder why, if 2001-2005 were “true cashman years”, c-money had it written into his contract after the 2005 season that he had full control and such a big deal was made of that situation. logic would dicate because cashman did not have full control between 2001-2005 (we know factually randy johnson, jaret wright, tony womack, all made in the 04-05 winter, were above his head, so he definitely didn’t have control). i don’t think it’s fair to analyze those years as his years.

      i do think it is fair to analyze the last three years, and i’m glad you did here in the context if the yanks all-time seasons. seems about right to me. above average, but not great, with this past season being concerning. it will be interesting to see where it goes from here and what this ballclub cashman has constructed can do.

    4. handtius
      March 31st, 2009 | 2:47 am

      thanks pat…2005, got my years mixed up.

    5. Tresh Fan
      March 31st, 2009 | 7:44 am

      Now those numbers tell a story
      ________________________

      They do indeed, confirming my long held belief that Lee McPhail was the worst GM in Yankees history.
      Ah, McPhail, McFail! No one came to the position of Yankees GM with a better resume; and no one had less success over such a long span (7 years!) His magnum opus, “The Five Year Plan,” was an unqualified disaster, and nearly all his trades—the good, the bad, and the ugly—had a striking common denominator: they cut payroll. The effects of his handiwork are evident here.

    6. Corey
      March 31st, 2009 | 9:30 am

      2000 shows that these numbers don’t necessarily equate to championships…just gotta win the games you need to

    7. March 31st, 2009 | 10:16 am

      Janks-n-Jints wrote:

      the “True Cashman Years”
      Now, those numbers tell a story…
      ————————-
      I don’t understand? Are you trying to make a point?

      That the Yankees pitching has been bad since 2004, albeit slightly better the last two years, and that their offense tanked last year. All on Cash’s watch.

    8. Raf
      March 31st, 2009 | 10:29 am

      Cashman’s been the GM since 1998…

    9. March 31st, 2009 | 12:41 pm

      Mostly I just want to know what the hell happened to the pitching staff in 1930.

      Would we have been calling for the firing of Ed Barrow, on account of his recent inability to build a pitching staff and the resulting third-place finish?

    10. Pat F
      March 31st, 2009 | 1:09 pm

      no problem handtius. i’m pretty sure we were making the same point, just had a year different years.

    11. March 31st, 2009 | 1:20 pm

      I’m surprised the 1998 team wasn’t ranked higher. For a while it seemed like that team never lost.

    12. March 31st, 2009 | 1:26 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Cashman’s been the GM since 1998…

      Been there, said that, on this one Raf.

      From 1998 through 2001, Cashman rode the team that Stick and Watson built. Com’on, you know that.

    13. MJ
      March 31st, 2009 | 1:43 pm

      From 1998 through 2001, Cashman rode the team that Stick and Watson built. Com’on, you know that.
      —–
      Cashman traded for Knoblauch, Clemens and Justice. It’s not like did NOTHING to the team he inherited from Stick and Watson. People like to think that the 1998-2000 World Series titles were inevitable but there’s no telling how things might’ve gone if not for those three acquisitions.

      Hold it against Cashman all you want that he was promoted to the job after Bob Watson left but the fact remains that he WAS the GM during that time and he made proactive moves to improve the ballclub.

    14. butchie22
      March 31st, 2009 | 1:46 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      Cashman’s been the GM since 1998…
      Been there, said that, on this one Raf.
      From 1998 through 2001, Cashman rode the team that Stick and Watson built. Com’on, you know that.

      True, but Cash Man made slight tweaks here and there like El Duque, Soriano, and Clemens that didn’t hurt their winning ways but did help to a certain degree. And this is coming from the Cash Man hater supreme! Stick and Bob, laid the foundations for the 98 team and that can’t be denied though. After 2001,it is a different story altogether though.Last year, where were the kids to come up and shore up the offense? Oh, I almost forgot Cash Man decided to concentrate on drafting pitching because he already had older/elder statesman master hitters.

    15. YankCrank
      March 31st, 2009 | 1:53 pm

      Oh, I almost forgot Cash Man decided to concentrate on drafting pitching because he already had older/elder statesman master hitters.
      —-

      I really hope you’re joking when you say this. You honestly believe he focussed on pitching in the draft because he felt he already had enough hitters at the major league level? Did I read that wrong?

    16. Raf
      March 31st, 2009 | 2:37 pm

      Been there, said that, on this one Raf.

      From 1998 through 2001, Cashman rode the team that Stick and Watson built. Com’on, you know that.
      ————–
      But if Cashman’s an incompetent boob of a GM that can’t evaluate pitching to save his life, don’t you think the Yanks would’ve missed the playoffs sooner than 10 years later? ;)

      Fact is, they may have built the team, but it doesn’t take long to fall from grace, as we can see with the current edition of the Detroit Tigers :)

    17. butchie22
      March 31st, 2009 | 3:05 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Been there, said that, on this one Raf.
      From 1998 through 2001, Cashman rode the team that Stick and Watson built. Com’on, you know that.
      ————–
      But if Cashman’s an incompetent boob of a GM that can’t evaluate pitching to save his life, don’t you think the Yanks would’ve missed the playoffs sooner than 10 years later?
      Fact is, they may have built the team, but it doesn’t take long to fall from grace, as we can see with the current edition of the Detroit Tigers

      Interesting point BUT as I’ve said about what money Detroit spends and what NY spends is a great chasm. If Detroit, could spend more money on drafting and on premium free agents they could hide their mistakes as well. If the Tigers were able to spend an extra 70 mill last year God know who else they could have afforded take that into the equation, as well.

      Cash Man deserves some credit,but he is the arcitect of the 2008 Yankees and they didn’t make it to October. Give another GM like Colletti and Sabean(another two who I don’t like) and give them 200 mill a year to play around with and see what they can do on that payroll.It’s not so much Cash Man’s incompetence(though that’s part of it)rather his results. He’s had time to put his imprint without the benefit of Tampa’s involvement and what has happened? Not only no World Series wins BUT no playoffs last year…..and how many times did the Yankees spend 200 mill a year during the last five years?

    18. Raf
      March 31st, 2009 | 3:40 pm

      If the Tigers were able to spend an extra 70 mill last year God know who else they could have afforded take that into the equation, as well.
      ——————-
      Well their payroll jumped from $95M to $138M, doesn’t that count for something?

      The Royals have more money to play with, it doesn’t negate the stupid moves that they’ve made. We can talk about teams that have spent, and haven’t done squat (1993 Mets, anyone?)

      If it were just about spending money, more teams would do it.

    19. butchie22
      March 31st, 2009 | 4:56 pm

      Raf wrote:

      If the Tigers were able to spend an extra 70 mill last year God know who else they could have afforded take that into the equation, as well.
      ——————-
      Well their payroll jumped from $95M to $138M, doesn’t that count for something?
      The Royals have more money to play with, it doesn’t negate the stupid moves that they’ve made. We can talk about teams that have spent, and haven’t done squat (1993 Mets, anyone?)
      If it were just about spending money, more teams would do it.

      Raf, teh Tigers weren’t spending Yankee money which is 210 million plus! Give them an extra 70 on top of the 132 mill and then we can talk. I don’t know that the Royals are an apropos example,I don’t know that they are relevant to the argument since they spend so little relative to the Yankees to begin with. perhaps it would be Tampa vs Pittsburgh. Look at how bad both teams have been and which one has become a force in the toughest division in baseball and which one is still in the JV. That might be a case of wise management without big money and having access to revenue sharing etc.

      Raf, one more thing most teams can’t do it! Most teams don’t have the resources that the Yanks have in YES and the new stadium. The Royals can’t just spend 200 mill a year because they would be losing tons of money. And in that market, they couldn’t even sustain a Royal’s owned regional sports network(RSTN) featuring the Royals either. Trust me Raf, take away the mega bucks from the Yankee payroll nad that team is not in the same conversation with the best teams in baseball. If the Yanks had to subtract CC, AJ, and Teix from this mix, I shudder to think what kind of team they would field this year……..

    20. Raf
      March 31st, 2009 | 6:00 pm

      Point is that spending is relative. I hear too much “z0mG, 200M!!!1!!1!!1one!1!!!” without any discussion as to how the payroll is broken down. No one points out that the Yanks have assumed contracts given by the Dodgers (Kevin Brown), Rangers (Rodriguez) or Phillies (Bobby Abreu). That tells me that people are just parroting the company line without giving it any thought. Which is fine, if they’re into that sort of thing. I happen not to be :)

      So lets give the Tigers another 70 million… So what? Who will they spend it on? They were in the Pavano chase too. It has been shown that he was a bum. He would’ve been a bum with the Tigers.

      Take away the “megabucks” and the Yanks will be right there with the rest of the other teams. Because that’s what they’ve done. That’s what they’ve always done. They’ve bought, players that’s nothing new. They’ve taken on salaries from other teams, that’s nothing new.

      Without CC, AJ & Teix, they won 89 games. They didn’t win more because of a spate of injuries. How many teams can lose 3/5th of their starting rotation, and 1/3 of their lineup and still win as many games as they did? Who’s to say they won’t move the young pitching to fill whatever holes they have? Who’s to say that Hughes and Kennedy won’t get another shot? Do you think the organization is going to give up on them after a handful of innings?

    21. Raf
      March 31st, 2009 | 6:05 pm

      Oh, I almost forgot Cash Man decided to concentrate on drafting pitching because he already had older/elder statesman master hitters.
      ——————-
      You may want to take a closer look at their drafting history

    22. McMillan
      November 3rd, 2013 | 11:56 pm

      Raf wrote:

      But if Cashman’s an incompetent boob of a GM that can’t evaluate pitching to save his life, don’t you think the Yanks would’ve missed the playoffs sooner than 10 years later?

      Fact is, they may have built the team, but it doesn’t take long to fall from grace, as we can see with the current edition of the Detroit Tigers

      LOL!

      I certainly enjoyed watching the Yanks in the 2012 playoffs; and in the 2013 playoffs. And I can’t wait to see what the not-so-incompetent boob of a G.M. puts together for a starting staff behind Sabathia and Nova in 2014…

      And yes, those Detroit Tigers certainly have fallen from grace in the building of teams on a foundation of starting pitching…

      Raf wrote:

      If it were just about spending money, more teams would do it.

      LOL!

      That makes sense…

      Raf wrote:

      You may want to take a closer look at their drafting history

      LOL! This stuff is great…

      “Hal Steinbrenner calls Yankees high command, including Brian Cashman, to Tampa to discuss Bombers’ barren farm system”

      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/hall-calls-tampa-meeting-address-barren-farm-system-article-1.1431853

      “Yankees need to study Red Sox, Cardinals
      Bombers should look to Boston and St. Louis to figure out how to better find and develop homegrown talent.”

      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/madden-playoff-confidential-notes-yankees-article-1.1490544

      LOL!

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.