• Wild Thought: Boiled Down, Are Yanks Medicore This Season?

    Posted by on May 27th, 2009 · Comments (61)

    The Yankees 2009 season is 28.4% in the books as of last night. This means, in about another week, this season will be one-third done.

    As of this morning, the Yankees are in second place in the A.L. East – one game back of the Boston Red Sox. That’s the good news.

    Overall, the Yankees record is now 26-20. They are 6 games over the .500 mark.

    However, to date, the Yankees are 6-3 against the lowly Baltimore Orioles this year. And, the Yankees recently took a four-game series from the Twins – where the Yankees were very lucky, out-scoring the Twins by five runs, overall, in those four contests.

    When you take these layup games against the O’s out of the picture, and subtract those four lucky wins against the Twinkies, the Yankees are 16-17. This is one game below the .500 mark.

    This leads to today’s wild thought: Is the Yankees current place in the A.L. East standings misleading in terms of capturing their performance this season, so far? Has New York, sans some favorable match-ups and a few lucky games, been more of a mediocre performer this season? What do you think?

    Comments on Wild Thought: Boiled Down, Are Yanks Medicore This Season?

    1. Corey
      May 27th, 2009 | 10:51 am

      since we’re playin the lets take games out of our record game, what if the yankees had swept the boston series? Then we’d be in 1st by 4 games with a record of 31-15

    2. YankCrank
      May 27th, 2009 | 10:58 am

      This makes sense, the Yankees win games because they’re lucky and they lose games because they’re mediocre. Great logic.

      Here’s a wild thought: What if the Yanks were one game out of first after having to play most of their season without A-Rod, Nady, Wang, Bruney and Posada? We should all be pretty stoked about that.

    3. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 10:59 am

      You know what’s funny, Steve? When I said you did the discounting wins thing all the time, you argued with me and denied it. You have done it pretty much every day this week. Also, Why take out the Twins game? Is a 1 run win not indicative of a good team? Isn’t the hallmark of a good team winning close games?

    4. May 27th, 2009 | 11:28 am

      Corey, others – I’m not saying “Let’s pretend and turn wins into losses or vice versa.”

      More so,what I’m saying is that wins are wins, and losses are losses, without question. However, perhaps, it may make sense (to some) to look at the strength of the opponent for wins and also look at the close nature of wins as well – to determine if there’s an element of luck and/or favorable schedule involved which has impacted the Yankees ability to place where they are, today, in the standings.

      Think of it this way: 2+2=4
      We all know that. And, every time you add two to two, you get four.
      However, how do you really know that “2″ is “two”? You could accept it as face value – and make an assumption that it’s “two.”
      Or, you could examine it closely to determine if it’s really “two” – or something else.
      And, if it’s not “two” then that “four” at the end of the equation is bogus.

      I hope this helps allow you to understand my approach. Again, it’s a suggestion/opinion on a different way to look at things. Your mileage may vary. And, I respect your right to have a different opinion – and hope that you would allow me the right to have my own.

    5. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 11:40 am

      I hope this helps allow you to understand my approach.

      It isn’t that I don’t understand your approach, I’m just baffled by the logic behind it. There is no “strength of schedule” argument, because of the number of games played during the season. There is an element of luck present (it’s the nature of the game), but it’s minimalized due to the number of games played during the season.

    6. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 11:42 am

      Also, speaking for myself, just because I disagree with your opinion does not mean that I think you shouldn’t have one.

    7. Corey
      May 27th, 2009 | 12:00 pm

      Also, speaking for myself, just because I disagree with your opinion does not mean that I think you shouldn’t have one.
      ========
      same here

    8. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 12:13 pm

      Raf wrote:

      I hope this helps allow you to understand my approach.

      It isn’t that I don’t understand your approach, I’m just baffled by the logic behind it. There is no “strength of schedule” argument, because of the number of games played during the season. There is an element of luck present (it’s the nature of the game), but it’s minimalized due to the number of games played during the season.

      Raf wrote:

      Also, speaking for myself, just because I disagree with your opinion does not mean that I think you shouldn’t have one.

      Exactly.

    9. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 12:16 pm

      Also, just to add to what Raf, said, I think there are times that you can look at strength of schedule- ie if there is a larger sample and a huge gap between performances v. good teams and bad teams. But, as YankCrank says above, you only look at this one way- they win due to luck but lose due to mediocrity. Where is the factor for luck on the other side of the equation? That never seems to enter the calculation.

    10. Evan3457
      May 27th, 2009 | 12:20 pm

      The Red Sox 2009 season is 28.4% in the books as of last night. This means, in about another week, this season will be one-third done.

      As of this morning, the Sox are in 1st place in the A.L. East – just one game in front of a mediocre Yankees team. That’s the good news.

      Overall, their record is now 27-19. They are 8 games over the .500 mark.

      However, to date, the Sox are 4-0 against the lowly Baltimore Orioles this year. And, they’re 3-1 vs. the Twins – where the Sox were very lucky, because the Twins were without their superstar, Joe Mauer, for the 1st two wins. In addition, they’re 3-2 against the miserable last-place Indians, and 3-0 against a crumbling Jays team that had its balloon burst by the Yanks just a few days before.

      When you take these layup games against the O’s, Jays and Indians out of the picture, and subtract those two lucky wins against the Mauer-less Twinkies, the Sox are 15-17. This is two games below the .500 mark.

      This leads to today’s wild thought: Is the Sox’ current place in the A.L. East standings misleading in terms of capturing their performance this season, so far? Have the Sox, sans their 11-game winning streak, been more of a mediocre performer this season? What do you think?

      Discounting wins you don’t think are valid; I like this. I think Steve is on to something here, gang.
      =======================================
      Yes the Red Sox have dominated the early season series against the Yanks. Just like they did in 2004, 2006 and 2007, when the Yanks won the division twice, and got the Wild Card the third year.

      The Sox are also 4-6 against the Rays. Does that mean the Rays are good, and the Sox are mediocre?

    11. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 12:42 pm

      Also, instead of picking and choosing games, ESPN has an RPI system where they rank the teams based on things such as strength of schedule. You can sort by SOS, and the Yankees SOS is 12th in baseball, the Red Sox are 24th. The Yankees SOS is 5th in the AL, 2nd in the AL East. Basically, even by strength of schedule, I would say that the Yankees record pretty much reflects where they are going to be.

      http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi?season=2009&sortColumn=sos

    12. YankCrank
      May 27th, 2009 | 12:53 pm

      Haha, beautiful work Evan.

    13. May 27th, 2009 | 12:56 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Yes the Red Sox have dominated the early season series against the Yanks. Just like they did in 2004, 2006 and 2007, when the Yanks won the division twice, and got the Wild Card the third year.

      I’d be careful not to brag about that. Tell it to a Sox fan and they will remind you that the Red Sox won rings in 2004 and 2007 – over the Yankees, who have not made it to the World Series since 2003.

      I’m just saying… ;-)

    14. May 27th, 2009 | 1:02 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      ESPN has an RPI system where they rank the teams based on things such as strength of schedule.

      On the same page, ESPN lists the Yankees Expected W-L to be 24-22, based on their run-differential. And, the fact that they are actually 26-20 ties into the theory that there’s an “an element of luck and/or favorable schedule involved which has impacted the Yankees ability to place where they are, today, in the standings.”

    15. OnceIWasAYankeeFan
      May 27th, 2009 | 1:10 pm

      I think the Yankees position heading into the second 1/3 of the season is somewhat overstated by their recent success. Remember the adage that you aren’t as great as you look during a hot streak nor as bad as you look during a losing streak. In addition to playing better, the Yankees have had more than a little bit of help from lady luck – the sweep of the Twins and not getting swept by the Phils easily could have gone the other way, and we’d be talking about Girardi on the hot-seat rather than whether the Yankees are about to run away with the division or not.

      The bottom line is that your team and my team haven’t hit on all cylinders yet, but are playoff qualifiers right now. How it all turns out will depend on the obvious questions: will the Yankee bullpen become a strength or not? Will Ortiz find his stroke or will Theo have to sacrifice a young player or two to get a bat? Will Posada and Matsui be substantial contributors? Can Melky keep it up? Will the Red Sox starting staff get its act together, or will it have to rely on Smoltz plus two rookies to save their bacon?

      In my opinion, we’ve got the makings of another great race, and we should all enjoy the next four months.

    16. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 1:12 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      Totally agree (although exW-L is based purely on RS and RA, skewed by that one game that the Yankees lost by 20). However, a 2 game swing at this point of the season is almost meaningless, and you are ignoring the SOS schedule point.

    17. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 1:13 pm

      OnceIWasAYankeeFan wrote:

      In my opinion, we’ve got the makings of another great race, and we should all enjoy the next four months.

      Definitely, although I think both teams will make the postseason, which may put a bit of a damper on things down the stretch.

    18. May 27th, 2009 | 1:34 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      you are ignoring the SOS schedule point.

      Not really. That’s an overall SOS factor – and that doesn’t respect HTH match-ups…which is how you really need to look at this, IMHO.

      The fact that the Yankees are 10-5 when playing a team with a WP of .450 or less, so far this season, tells me that the Yankees have been taking advantage of their SOS – or lack thereof.

    19. Evan3457
      May 27th, 2009 | 1:41 pm

      Baseball Prospectus does a pretty good job in breaking down the standings thrwough a variety of adjustments. Here’s the unadjusted AL East:

      Red Sox 27-19
      Yanks 26-20
      Jays 27-22
      Rays 23-25
      Oriloles 20-26

      The “1st-order” adjustment is straight Pythagorean adjustment from basic runs scored/runs allowed. This adjustment makes the Yanks look worse, perhaps worse than they truly are, as they suffered 3 or 4 horrendous wipeouts earlier in the season (Actually, they give win totals rounded to the nearest tenth of a win or loss, but I’m agnostic about the existence of 1/10 th of a win…):

      Jays 28 – 21
      Rays 27 – 21
      Red Sox 26 – 20
      Yanks 24 – 22
      Oriloles 19 – 27

      The “2nd-order” adjustment is to adjust the runs scored/runs allowed totals for ballpark effects from the ballparks played in to date. This usually doesn’t change the records very much:

      Rays 28 – 20
      Jays 28 – 21
      Red Sox 25 – 21
      Yanks 24 – 22
      Oriloles 18 – 28

      The “3rd-order” adjustment is adjusting for strength of schedule; if you’ve played a disproportionate number of tough teams, the adjustments increase your runs scored and decrease your runs allowed, and the calculated wins then increases (and the other way if you’ve played a disproportionate number of weak teams):

      Red Sox 26 – 20
      Jays 27 – 22
      Rays 26 – 22
      Yanks 24 – 22
      Oriloles 19 – 27

      The adjusted standings say the Rays are better than they’ve looked so far, and the Yanks are worse. The Yanks have made up substantial “ground” over the 9-game winning streak. When I looked at these standing earlier, they showed the Yanks were 5 or 6 under at a time when their real records was even .500 or a game under.

      So let’s just say that the Yanks still have some things to be concerned about; some weaknesses that need to be shored up. But two games of deficit between the 1/4 pole and the 1/3 pole? That’s not anything to panic over, or to come to early conclusions about.

    20. May 27th, 2009 | 2:02 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The adjusted standings say the Rays are better than they’ve looked so far, and the Yanks are worse. …
      So let’s just say that the Yanks still have some things to be concerned about; some weaknesses that need to be shored up.

      And, that’s exactly my point here. (About the Yanks, that is. I don’t know enough about the Rays to comment on them in this manner.)

    21. Evan3457
      May 27th, 2009 | 2:08 pm

      Well, yeah, Steve, but that’s true of about any team right now except maybe the Dodgers. And the 2nd half is just as valid, in my opinion:

      …But two games of deficit between the 1/4 pole and the 1/3 pole? That’s not anything to panic over, or to come to early conclusions about.

    22. Pat F
      May 27th, 2009 | 2:12 pm

      i think we all understand what you are saying, we are just blown away that you can present the information this way and think it is reasonable on some level.

      you can twist records a million ways. one of your obsessions this year has been the yankees’ efforts against the orioles and if you take out those games this is the yankees record. but i can say, the yankees were 13-15 without their best player and are now 13-5 with him, and that’s a sign of big things to come. we could go back and forth all day.

      it would be so much more simplistic, i don’t know, to just take 26-20 for 26-20. any wins against bad teams get counteracted by the immense injuries this team has experienced. they are 26-20, period.

      also, thanks for the guaranteed swisher downtown tonight, we need you to start doing this every single day steven.

    23. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 2:39 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      And, that’s exactly my point here. (About the Yanks, that is. I don’t know enough about the Rays to comment on them in this manner.)

      Rays
      T7th RSAA
      1st in RCAA
      6th in Deff Eff

      So, I’d say they need to pick up the offense, and turn more batted balls into outs. Odd, considering they’re the best in the league in UZR.

      In contrast

      Yanks

      11th RSAA
      2nd in RCAA
      4th in Deff Eff

      Yanks need to get the pitching in order, and shore up the defense a bit (8th in the league in UZR)

    24. May 27th, 2009 | 2:54 pm

      Pat F wrote:

      you can twist records a million ways. one of your obsessions this year has been the yankees’ efforts against the orioles and if you take out those games this is the yankees record. but i can say, the yankees were 13-15 without their best player and are now 13-5 with him, and that’s a sign of big things to come. we could go back and forth all day.

      Yanks were averaging 5.6 runs per game in the 28 games that A-Rod missed at the start of the season. And, since he’s been back, the Yanks have averaged 5.5 runs per game in the 18 games since he’s been back.

      So, how has A-Rod been the reason for them going 13-5 in the last 18? The offensive has not improved with him. The reason why the Yankees went 13-5 in those games was because of something other than A-Rod.

    25. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 3:09 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      The reason why the Yankees went 13-5 in those games was because of something other than A-Rod.

      Yep, the pitching

    26. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 3:34 pm

      Steve, I dont think anyone ever had a problem with you having your opinion, which you are entitled to. it is just that you used some data and not others to reach your point, and the logic was therefore faulty. I’m much more willing to accept the point from BP, because they factor in both sides of the ledger- losses that should have been wins, and wins that should have been losses. You seem to only consider wins that you decide should be losses.

    27. Pat F
      May 27th, 2009 | 3:40 pm

      a-rod being a reason for 13-5 is just a hypothetical. my point is that we can go back and forth all day on reasons the yankees are better or worse than their record actually shows. you’re a glass half empty boy. but you can just as easily go glass half full (say, injuries). so maybe we should just take their record for what it is instead of obsessing over the fact that they’ve played well against baltimore (which, last time i checked, beating up on good teams is one way in which a team can accumulate wins and make the playoffs. there have been a lot of “good” teams with “good” records largely because they did what they were supposed to do – beat bad teams. this isn’t a reason to discredit teams, it might even be a reason to praise them).

    28. May 27th, 2009 | 4:04 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      You seem to only consider wins that you decide should be losses.

      Tell me which of the Yankees losses occurred thsi year because the other team got lucky or the Yankees were unlucky.

      I can’t think of any, at first blush.

      Tell me which of the Yankees losses occured this year because the team that beat them was just a better team that the Yankees had no business being on the same field with them – at the level where it’s the same difference in terms of the talent gap between the Yanks and O’s.

      I can’t think of any, at first blush.

      This is why I’m not looking at losses.

    29. May 27th, 2009 | 4:07 pm

      Pat F wrote:

      a-rod being a reason for 13-5 is just a hypothetical. .

      “Hypothetical”? You mean, like, a “Wild Thought?”

      Gee, so you’re allowed to have them, based on no fact whatsoever (see the Runs/Gm pre- and post-Alex) yet I’m not allowed to wonder out loud with a “Wild Thought” without piles of data behind it? Really? Wow. That’s fair…not.

    30. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 4:16 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      How about the first two games against Boston? Mariano giving it up, and then Burnett having his worst game of the season to blow a huge lead? How are those any less lucky than the Twins games? How about any games that CC or Mariano didnt pitch well in? If the Yankees beating a talented but struggling pitcher like Lidge is lucky, shouldn’t them losing when Mo was struggling be unlucky?

    31. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 4:18 pm

      Or, for that matter, the games that Wang pitched. i would call his rapid disintegration just as unlucky as Lidge’s performance was, wouldn’t you?

    32. May 27th, 2009 | 4:26 pm

      Fair point on the game that Mo blew on April 24th. That’s one unlucky loss.

      Wang sucking was unlucky? Gee, those are some wonderful Yankees tainted glasses if you want to claim that…

      No. When a player sucks that bad, it’s not being unlucky. It’s called losing because you sucked.

    33. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 4:31 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      Then why is Lidge sucking lucky for the Yanks? It cuts both ways, doesn’t it? AJ sucking in that game against Boston? What about that? How is that different than Lidge?

    34. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 4:31 pm

      And for that matter, why are any of the games against the Twins lucky? Are all one run wins lucky?

    35. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 4:37 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Wang sucking was unlucky? Gee, those are some wonderful Yankees tainted glasses if you want to claim that…
      No. When a player sucks that bad, it’s not being unlucky. It’s called losing because you sucked.

      No. Ponson getting shelled is one thing, Wang getting shelled is another. One is expected, one isn’t. You going to tell me that going into the season you saw Wang performing as poorly as he did?

      That has nothing to do with “wonderful Yankees tainted glasses.”

    36. May 27th, 2009 | 4:50 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      And for that matter, why are any of the games against the Twins lucky? Are all one run wins lucky?

      I’m beginning to think you’re just busting my chops with these questions.

      Really, com’on…

      You play a team four times in four days – and you win all four games. However, you only out-score the team by five runs, overall, in those four games. And, in one of those games, you score 3 times in the bottom of the 9th to win it. And, you don’t think, somewhere, in some of those four games, you got lucky, somewhere, where maybe one ground ball three inches to the left or one strike that was called a ball,. or something else very small, might have been the difference between winning and losing? Really?

      Let’s agree to disagree on this one. Because, if you’re not willing to consider that the Yankees were lucky to win ALL four of those games against the Twins, then you’re only willing to see what you want to see…and it’s not worth my time to try and help you consider something else…

    37. May 27th, 2009 | 4:52 pm

      Raf wrote:

      You going to tell me that going into the season you saw Wang performing as poorly as he did?”

      No. I did not see it. But, that doesn’t mean the Yankees are unlucky that Wang has sucked this season.

      It happens all the time. And, luck, or the absence thereof, has nothing to do with it – unless you’re looking for an excuse on why someone sucked and you can’t come up with something else.

    38. yagottagotomo1
      May 27th, 2009 | 4:57 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      And, you don’t think, somewhere, in some of those four games, you got lucky, somewhere, where maybe one ground ball three inches to the left or one strike that was called a ball,. or something else very small, might have been the difference between winning and losing? Really?

      And you dont think that there have been just as many moments in losses? You are telling me with certainty that they have more balls that have just made it where it needs to be for them than against them? Really?

      Your right, let’s agree to disagree.

    39. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 5:16 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      You going to tell me that going into the season you saw Wang performing as poorly as he did?”
      No. I did not see it. But, that doesn’t mean the Yankees are unlucky that Wang has sucked this season.
      It happens all the time. And, luck, or the absence thereof, has nothing to do with it – unless you’re looking for an excuse on why someone sucked and you can’t come up with something else.

      No, it doesn’t happen all the time. Wang isn’t some bum who came out of nowhere had a great year, then returned to mediocrity. There was nothing to indicate that he would perform as poorly as he did.

      Now, if we were talking about Jaret Wright, prior to the 2005 season, then yes, you’d have a point :D

    40. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 5:21 pm

      Speaking of 2005, Kevin Brown posted a 6.50 ERA, yet he had a FIP of 3.61. On the flip side, Shawn Chacon posted a 2.79 ERA, yet had a FIP of 4.56.

      Brown was unlucky, Chacon was lucky.

    41. May 27th, 2009 | 5:33 pm

      As we all debate hypotheticals, it is important to note that if David Ortiz had wheels he’d be a Volkswagen.

      Every team’s going to have games they should have lost but didn’t and games they should win but don’t, it all will wash out in the end.

    42. May 27th, 2009 | 5:37 pm

      Raf wrote:

      No, it doesn’t happen all the time.

      Bill James actually did a feature on this called “Wipeout” – where James studies pitchers who have gone from a “Cy Young Award” type season to bombing out the next year. It’s a long list. It happens more than you suspect.

    43. May 27th, 2009 | 5:40 pm

      sean mcnally wrote:

      Every team’s going to have games they should have lost but didn’t and games they should win but don’t, it all will wash out in the end.

      Each season, every big league team is going to win 60 games, no matter what, and, every big league team is going lose 60 games, no matter what – and it’s what they do in the other 42 games that will define their overall record.

      And, here, I’m just wondering if the Yankees have what it takes to win the subset within the “42″ when they face a really good team…

      …again, that’s all.

    44. Evan3457
      May 27th, 2009 | 5:46 pm

      …whereas I’m wondering if they’re good enough to win all 42. ;-)

      Assuming that some of the 42 havn’t already happened.

      How would we know?

    45. Raf
      May 27th, 2009 | 5:52 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Bill James actually did a feature on this called “Wipeout” – where James studies pitchers who have gone from a “Cy Young Award” type season to bombing out the next year. It’s a long list. It happens more than you suspect.

      Care to share a few names? How many names are on the list overall?

    46. Pat F
      May 27th, 2009 | 6:22 pm

      i just don’t get this. there is no such thing is a “lucky” win. the red sox didn’t get lucky on may 24th. they beat mo. it happens a few times every season. just like the yankees didn’t get lucky when they beat lidge. you are allowed to win games in the 9th inning. just because a team surrenders a run in the 9th inning doesn’t mean they gave the game to the other team. i also don’t get how us beating the orioles (who suck) is something different than wang handing three games away early in the season (because he sucked). just doesn’t make any sense. but inconsistency and one sided arguments that don’t evaluate both sides is in fact the name of the game here.

    47. Pat F
      May 27th, 2009 | 6:28 pm

      and on your response to my “hypothetical” being hypocritical, EXACTLY the opposite. i wasn’t saying i thought a-rod was the reason the yankees were winning lately. i was saying that is something someone COULD reply to glass half empty evaluation of the yankees’ record. they could suggest a million reasons as to why the team is actually better than 26-20, you could suggest a million reasons as to why the team is worse than 26-20. my point was not that you’re not allowed to have your “wild thoughts”, as i’m not even trying to have a hypothetical, just offering one someone *might* offer. MY point was that this is a totally fruitless exercise. the team is 26-20 and that’s it. there are wins and there are losses. nothing else.

    48. May 27th, 2009 | 6:30 pm

      Steve, i would suggest that you do this for all the *assumed* contenders of the AL and rank them… we would really see who wins the strength argument… To add a wrinkle, we may have to consider any significant folks missing on the opponent… also how abt the actual starting pitchers… we faced Doc Holladay but Bosox didnt so are they lucky to have won 3/3 instead of 2/3.. At a minimum its very short sighted to only quote the Yankee record… give us a few more teams to compare with…

    49. handtius
      May 27th, 2009 | 7:38 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      “So, how has A-Rod been the reason for them going 13-5 in the last 18?”

      Check RISP for the team since A-lex been back.

    50. May 27th, 2009 | 8:45 pm

      handtius wrote:

      “So, how has A-Rod been the reason for them going 13-5 in the last 18?”
      Check RISP for the team since A-lex been back.

      Uh…help me out there. If they were scoring 5.6 R/G before his return and they’re scoing 5.5 R/G since his return, how exactly does BAwRISP matter? At the end of the day, it’s still the same amoung of runs.

    51. May 27th, 2009 | 8:47 pm

      Pat F wrote:

      MY point was that this is a totally fruitless exercise. the team is 26-20 and that’s it. there are wins and there are losses. nothing else.

      Pat – thanks for your opinion. It’s different from mine. And, it doesn’t bring cause for my to change mine. But, thank you for sharing it. I think it’s great that you feel my opinion is “fruitless” and yet you continue to read it, day after day. I truly appreciate your interest in this site.

    52. May 27th, 2009 | 9:10 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Steve Lombardi wrote:
      Bill James actually did a feature on this called “Wipeout” – where James studies pitchers who have gone from a “Cy Young Award” type season to bombing out the next year. It’s a long list. It happens more than you suspect.
      Care to share a few names? How many names are on the list overall?

      Wait a minute, Steve… don’t you own and haven’t you reviewed the book that talks about “Wipeout”?

      http://waswatching.com/2009/04/05/the-bill-james-gold-mine-2009/

      ““Wipeout” – where James studies pitchers who have gone from a “Cy Young Award” type season to bombing out the next year.”

      Shouldn’t you know already who’s on the list and how many names are on the list overall? ;-)

    53. BOHAN
      May 27th, 2009 | 9:34 pm

      they play the games for a reason…. theres no math or calculation or strength of schedule in baseball… u have to go out there and win if u win those games then u deserve to be called a good team…. the yankees are playin well now and in my opinion are where they should be considering they havent had their 3 pitcher (wang) main reliever tog et to mo (bruney) their catcher (posada) and arguably the best player in the game (arod) considering most of the season these guys have been either hurt or ineffective id say theyre playin pretty damn good

    54. BOHAN
      May 27th, 2009 | 9:36 pm

      o and bill james is a moron…. math doesnt win ballgames or championships its won out in the field…. anyone can beat anyone on any given day… this y its the greatest game on earth

    55. May 27th, 2009 | 9:36 pm

      brent.nycz wrote:

      Wait a minute, Steve… don’t you own and haven’t you reviewed the book that talks about “Wipeout”? Shouldn’t you know already who’s on the list and how many names are on the list overall?

      Do I look like the NYPL? ;-)

    56. May 27th, 2009 | 10:14 pm

      BOHAN wrote:

      o and bill james is a moron…. math doesnt win ballgames or championships its won out in the field…. anyone can beat anyone on any given day… this y its the greatest game on earth

      Tell that to Theo Epstein, I don’t think he got the message.

    57. Evan3457
      May 27th, 2009 | 11:43 pm

      Yanks no longer a “medicore” 2nd place team.

      Yanks now a “medicore” 1st place team. :-)

    58. May 27th, 2009 | 11:57 pm

      Dude, tied for 1st, no?

    59. Total Blam
      May 28th, 2009 | 12:54 pm

      Dude, you are such a killjoy! Are these headines coming later?

      “Was Burnett Mediocre because he only pitched 6 shutout innings?”

      “Matsui Slump Continues, as he only goes long twice in one night”

      And if the Yankees win the World Series in 5 games, I’m guessing your next-day post will be “Are Yanks Mediocre because they didn’t sweep the series?”

      Walk off wins count the same as 9-2 blowouts. That’s the reason why the Rays made it last year: you play like every day counts, and those close wins can make the difference between a -90 win season and a 90+ win season.

      First place in spite of many injuries and a bullpen that can’t find its way, a third of the way through the season.

    60. handtius
      May 28th, 2009 | 6:53 pm

      “Uh…help me out there. If they were scoring 5.6 R/G before his return and they’re scoing 5.5 R/G since his return, how exactly does BAwRISP matter? At the end of the day, it’s still the same amoung of runs.”

      Actually, I think it does. when a team goes from hitting 230 to 340 when one player returns, that is rather significant, wouldn’t you say? I’m not saying that is the reason they started winning, the pitching obviously is, but Alex definitely has had a major impact returning.

    61. June 18th, 2009 | 11:09 pm

      [...] for the record, at this blog, on May 27th, one week after the Yankees finished that 11-2 run, I wrote: As of this morning, the Yankees are in second place in the A.L. East – one game back of the [...]

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.