• ‘09 Yanks: More Mediocrity Than Anything Else

    Posted by on June 18th, 2009 · Comments (52)

    Over the course of their first 28 games this season, from Opening Day on April 6th through May 7th, the New York Yankees went 13-15. And, at the close of business on May 7th, the Yankees found themselves sitting in 3rd place in the A.L. East, 5.5 games back of first place. With an overall record two games under .500 after their first month of play, New York played, and looked like, a mediocre ballclub.

    However, over their next 13 games, the Yankees caught fire – as they went 11-2 from May 8th through May 21st. During this time, they moved four games closer to first place (shaving their games back from 5.5 to just 1.5).

    At that time, few looked at that 11-2 run by New York and were willing to say that most of that was against the Orioles and Twins (where the Yankees went 9-1).

    In fact, the Yankees went 5-1 against the Orioles during this time and Baltimore had just fashioned a terrible string of games prior to this period where they went 6-15 (from April 15th through May 7th). Basically, the Yankees caught the O’s when they were playing terrible baseball. Also, the Yankees went 4-0 against the Twins during this period where the Yankees were very lucky, out-scoring the Twins by five runs, overall, in those four contests.

    But, 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 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?

    Based on the comments left to that entry, many disagreed with my suggestion that “sans some favorable match-ups and a few lucky games” the Yankees had “been more of a mediocre performer this season.”

    Well, what’s happened in Yankeeland since that run where New York went 11-2?

    Including today’s loss against the lowly Washington Nats, in their last 25 games, from May 22nd through June 18th, the New York Yankees have gone 13-12. Just as was the case in their first 28 games of the season, with this mark, New York has played, and looked like, a mediocre ballclub. Actually, it’s worse than this when you consider that Willy Aybar and Luis Castillo handed the Yankees two wins during this period. Even Yankees fanboys with the biggest and baddest pair of Yankees Blinders possible would be willing to admit that New York’s record should be more like 11-14 over these last 25 games rather than the 13-12 that it’s been, in reality.

    So, in summary, this has been the Yankees 2009 season to date: 28 games of mediocrity, followed by 13 games of serendipity, followed by 25 games of mediocrity. Basically, it’s been a couple of thin slices of luck sandwiched by two thick oversized slices of mediocrity. And, to me, when you digest that sandwich, you mostly taste the mediocrity.

    Hopefully, the remaining 96 games for the Yankees this season will be more palatable. However, if it ends up being another big bowl of mediocrity, I would not be shocked. As, so far this season, the Yankees have showed us that they are capable of little else other than playing bourgeoisie (middle class) baseball.

    Comments on ‘09 Yanks: More Mediocrity Than Anything Else

    1. Tresh Fan
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:10 am

      One might argue that, if not for poor performances by Ron Villone and Mike McDougal in an inning plus on Tuesday, this would have been a three game sweep AT HOME by the supposedly worst team in MLB.

      I don’t know. I guess the Yankees are just waiting for Xavier Nady to get back. That must be it. All the other pieces are there, but they just aren’t meshing. So it must be Nady.

    2. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:44 am

      Can’t you do this for any team? The Red Sox, without their stretch of 11 straight in April, are 29-26. Baseball is a game of streaks- you need to minimize your lows as best as possible to be successful. The Yankees messed that up by losing to the Nats, but I dont think that means mediocrity. If you take out the best stretch of the year for most teams at this point, it will look like mediocrity.

    3. Pat F
      June 19th, 2009 | 2:21 am

      totally agree with yagotta here.

      but this series pretty much proves the point. anybody can beat anybody at any time. if the yanks had swept the nats, it would be considered a layup. if the yanks lose 2 of 3, it just goes in as part of there general record in non-layup games. not quite sure how that matches up. if you beat them it’s expected, if you don’t it gets held against you. i’m out on things like that.

      the story of the yankees season so far, as frustrating as this series was, is 0-8 against boston. if they had even done a 2-6 things would seem a lot better. as it is we have the 4th best record in baseball and just have to roll with it, really doesn’t matter how we got there. you beat the teams you beat the way you beat them and you lose to the teams you lose to the way you lose to them. this is sports.

    4. June 19th, 2009 | 8:17 am

      Tresh Fan wrote:

      One might argue that, if not for poor performances by Ron Villone and Mike McDougal in an inning plus on Tuesday, this would have been a three game sweep AT HOME by the supposedly worst team in MLB.

      Excellent point.

    5. June 19th, 2009 | 8:21 am

      For those who want to deflect here, and offer “Hey, what about Boston?,” look at how the Red Sox have done, this season, to date, using the same size pie slices as this Yankees study:

      1st 28 games 17-11
      Next 13 games 8-5
      Last 25 games 15-10

      Where is the big run of mediocrity there, like the Yanks have fashioned in their 28 and 25 games blocks? It’s not there – not even close.

    6. June 19th, 2009 | 8:25 am

      Pat F wrote:

      anybody can beat anybody at any time.

      Really? Via ESPN -

      The Nationals entered their series with the Yankees with a 16-45 record (.262 win percentage). They are the worst team to beat the Yankees in a series in which the Yankees were at home (minimum 50 games into the season). The previous worst, 1939 St. Louis Browns (38-99).

      The Nationals are the third-worst team to beat the Yankees in any series.

      [The 1996 Yankees lost a series on the road to the 13-46 Tigers (.220 win percentage). The 2005 Yankees lost a series on the road to the 13-37 Royals (.260 win pct).]

      What the Nationals did to the Yankees in this series hardly ever happens. So, how can it happen at any time?

    7. June 19th, 2009 | 8:43 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      For those who want to deflect here, and offer “Hey, what about Boston?,” look at how the Red Sox have done, this season, to date, using the same size pie slices as this Yankees study:

      But those endpoints are completely arbitrary, chosen specifically to suit your purposes in regard to demonstrating the Yankees supposed mediocrity. I’m guessing that if I choose the right selective endpoints, I can demonstrate Boston’s “mediocrity” too.

    8. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 8:45 am

      Logged in to say what Justin said. If the Yankees had the Red Sox record, you would just slice it differently to make them look mediocre.

    9. June 19th, 2009 | 8:52 am

      Justin wrote:

      I can demonstrate Boston’s “mediocrity” too.

      Please do. Show me, where, the Red Sox are like the Yankees this year – having two runs of 25+ games where they barely played .500 ball or less.

    10. Jake1
      June 19th, 2009 | 8:54 am

      im sick of the homers who are doing what the team does and tipping their caps to these scrubs.

      admit its embarrassing that we lost 2 out of 3 to the worst team in mlb history

      show some pride

    11. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 8:58 am

      Outside of their 11 game winnig streak, they are 29-26. The point is, you are slicing it into 25 game stretches because it fits your point.

    12. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 8:59 am

      Huh? Who is tipping their caps- they lost and it was awful. That doesn’t equal mediocrity- the 98 Yankees lost to some bad clubs as well.

    13. June 19th, 2009 | 9:01 am

      For example (and I could probably do this better but I don’t have time) let’s look at Boston’s season this way:

      First 8 games: 2-6.
      Next 11 games: 11-0.
      Next 30 games: 15-16.
      Next 15 games: 12-3.

      Looks to me like Boston’s been mighty inconsistent and has benefited from two unsustainable hot streaks. That early losing streak is clearly below their established level. But the thirty game stretch of nearly .500 baseball suggests a mediocre, some might say bourgeois, team overall. Wouldn’t you agree?

    14. ken
      June 19th, 2009 | 9:02 am

      Beating up on bad teams is a sign of a good team and how to win divisions. What also needs to be done, and which they are not, is playing .500 ball against the good teams.

    15. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 9:05 am

      Exactly ken. This series loss was bad, but they have taken cae of business against the lesser teams. The reason they trail in the division is the inability to beat one specific winning team.

    16. ken
      June 19th, 2009 | 9:09 am

      Forget slicing the stats. Boston has:

      1- Better starting pitching
      2- better bullpen
      3- better defense in the outfield (I’ll call it even for infield defense though perhaps an edge to Yankees)

      What’s that old saying about pitching and defense?

    17. June 19th, 2009 | 9:09 am

      Justin wrote:

      look at Boston’s season this way:

      First 8 games: 2-6.
      Next 11 games: 11-0.
      Next 30 games: 15-16.
      Next 15 games: 12-3.

      That’s one block of 25-30 games at or near .500 for Boston. The Yankees have two such blocks, to date, this season. That’s the huge difference here.

      Again, show me, where, the Red Sox are like the Yankees this year – having two runs of 25+ games where they barely played .500 ball or less.

    18. Tresh Fan
      June 19th, 2009 | 9:18 am

      Let’s not forget the fact that the Bombers are 0-8 vs Boston this year. If the Red Sox are just as mediocre as the Yankees wouldn’t their head to head record be a bit more balanced?

    19. June 19th, 2009 | 9:26 am

      Tresh Fan wrote:

      Let’s not forget the fact that the Bombers are 0-8 vs Boston this year. If the Red Sox are just as mediocre as the Yankees wouldn’t their head to head record be a bit more balanced?

      Another excellent point.

    20. June 19th, 2009 | 9:28 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Again, show me, where, the Red Sox are like the Yankees this year – having two runs of 25+ games where they barely played .500 ball or less.

      But that’s a completely arbitrary standard!

      The Red Sox haven’t had two 25+ game runs of mediocrity because they’ve instead had two hot streaks. The Yankees have had two 25+ game runs of mediocrity because they’ve only had one hot streak. This is one way to demonstrate how the games have broken down such that the Red Sox have a slightly better record than the Yankees.

      But there are others! The head-to-head series, for example.

      But all any of it actually PROVES is that the Red Sox have a slightly better record than the Yankees, which SUGGESTS that they are a slightly better team. To get at WHY the Red Sox are a slightly better team, if indeed they actually are, we have to look at other, more in-depth statistics. All this record manipulation stuff is just veneer.

    21. June 19th, 2009 | 9:31 am

      Tresh Fan wrote:

      Let’s not forget the fact that the Bombers are 0-8 vs Boston this year. If the Red Sox are just as mediocre as the Yankees wouldn’t their head to head record be a bit more balanced?

      Not necessarily, because an eight games constitutes a pretty small sample. It certainly strongly suggests that the Red Sox are the better team, but even if that’s the case, the 0-8 record is still obviously skewed by the sample size.

    22. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 9:31 am

      Who said they are just as mediocre? I just said that you can slice data anyway you like to fit your point, even with the best of teams. Right now, the Sox are better. But if you split their season into 10 game segments, suddenly they have 4 segments at 6-4 or worse wrapped around two hot streak segments. Their one little extra hot streak is why they are three games up, but looking at them in 10 game streaks makes them look inconsistent. Baseball is a game of streaks, and taking out the good streaks is bound to make a good team look mediocre.

    23. June 19th, 2009 | 10:11 am

      Justin wrote:

      But that’s a completely arbitrary standard!

      Not in my opinion.

      When you’re 66 games into a season, and your team has two 25+ game streaks where they’ve played near or below .500 ball, that’s the majority of the season.

      Having one streak of 25-30 games of around .500 ball in 66 games, is not the bulk of your season. That’s why Boston is not in the same class here with New York.

    24. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 10:24 am

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      As I said above, if you slice it into ten game segments, you get a different picture regarding Boston. Listen, you cut it however you like to fit your conclusion, that is fine by me. But the Yankees are only 3 games behind Boston despite having lost to them 8 times. They have played very well against everyone else. Being that most of their games are against non-Boston competition, I think they are in fine shape.

    25. June 19th, 2009 | 10:35 am

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      I think they are in fine shape.

      Good for you. I disagree. But, it’s not a rule that we have to agree on this. It will be interesting to see if we both feel the same way, as we do now, 15 games from now, 30 games from now, and/or 60 games from now.

    26. ken
      June 19th, 2009 | 10:45 am

      I think it is fair to say that as of today, the Sox are a better team and deserve a better record. However, I can also see that the Yankees could gel into a much better team than they are right now. I think that the pitching, including bullpen, is starting to become more reliable than earlier this year. The hitting will come around.

      So, let’s just play it out. However, I don’t see how anyone can say that the Red Sox are not a better team so far this season. They are.

    27. Raf
      June 19th, 2009 | 10:46 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Tresh Fan wrote:
      Let’s not forget the fact that the Bombers are 0-8 vs Boston this year. If the Red Sox are just as mediocre as the Yankees wouldn’t their head to head record be a bit more balanced?
      Another excellent point.

      1988

      NYM: 100-60
      LAD: 94- 67

      HTH: 10-1 (NYM)

      Is .584 ball mediocre?

    28. June 19th, 2009 | 11:06 am

      Raf – were the Mets and Dodgers in the same DIV in 1988 and playing mostly the same schedule – like the 2009 Yanks and Red Sox are?

    29. MJ
      June 19th, 2009 | 11:09 am

      Forget slicing the stats. Boston has:

      1- Better starting pitching
      2- better bullpen
      3- better defense in the outfield (I’ll call it even for infield defense though perhaps an edge to Yankees)

      What’s that old saying about pitching and defense?
      ———–
      1 – Debatable.
      2 – True.
      3 – Untrue.

      1 – RS starters ERA 4.78 / NYY starters ERA 4.86
      3 – RS team OF UZR/150: -3.9 / NYY team OF UZR/150: -1.3
      3a – RS individual UZR/150: Drew (4.9), Baldelli (2.3), Ellsbury (-1.4), Bay (-10.1) / NYY individual UZR/150: Gardner (7.0), Cabrera (6.7), Swisher (-6.3), Damon (-7.9)

    30. MJ
      June 19th, 2009 | 11:11 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Raf – were the Mets and Dodgers in the same DIV in 1988 and playing mostly the same schedule – like the 2009 Yanks and Red Sox are?

      If the point you’re responding to is:

      Let’s not forget the fact that the Bombers are 0-8 vs Boston this year. If the Red Sox are just as mediocre as the Yankees wouldn’t their head to head record be a bit more balanced?

      then talking about 1988 NL East vs. NL West is irrelevant. Raf pointed out that the ’88 Mets owned the ’88 Dodgers in the 11 games they played against one another. To bring up their respective schedules outside of their head-to-heat matchups would be arguing outside of the point you’re trying to agree with.

    31. Raf
      June 19th, 2009 | 11:11 am

      Balanced schedule in 1988; 12 opposite division, 18 intra division.

      Yanks and Sox are 3 games apart in the standings, so I’m not quite sure what the hubub is all about…

      Meanwhile, the AL Darling Defending Champs Tampa Bay are chugging along @ 35-33, and are 6 games out…

      However, they’re 4-4 against the Yanks and 6-4 against the Red Sox… woo-hoo?

    32. June 19th, 2009 | 11:28 am

      Oh, I think I see what you guys are trying to say…

      The 1988 Mets = the 2009 Red Sox
      and the 1988 Dodgers = the 2009 Yanks
      and, it’s no worry that the 2009 Yanks have been owned by Boston this season – because the Mets owned the Dodgers in 1988 in the regular season.

      Hmm…

      But, IIRC, the 1988 Mets were a bunch of drugged out fat cats and the 1988 Dodgers had Orel Hershiser and a team of scrappers that would not allow themselves to be told that someone else was better than them.

      Are the 2009 Sox a bunch of drugged up fat cats? Probably not. And, while the Yankees have CC now – who might carry them in the REGULAR season they way Orel did those Dodgers – can we say this Yankees team is scrappy and has a refuse to lose ‘tude?

      No.

      Just check out their last three games. Or, how they have played since Boston swept them up in Fenway.

    33. MJ
      June 19th, 2009 | 11:33 am

      Oh, I think I see what you guys are trying to say…

      The 1988 Mets = the 2009 Red Sox
      and the 1988 Dodgers = the 2009 Yanks
      and, it’s no worry that the 2009 Yanks have been owned by Boston this season – because the Mets owned the Dodgers in 1988 in the regular season.

      Hmm…

      But, IIRC, the 1988 Mets were a bunch of drugged out fat cats and the 1988 Dodgers had Orel Hershiser and a team of scrappers that would not allow themselves to be told that someone else was better than them.

      Are the 2009 Sox a bunch of drugged up fat cats? Probably not. And, while the Yankees have CC now – who might carry them in the REGULAR season they way Orel did those Dodgers – can we say this Yankees team is scrappy and has a refuse to lose ‘tude?

      No.

      Just check out their last three games. Or, how they have played since Boston swept them up in Fenway.
      ———
      I won’t speak for Raf but I’m certainly not trying to make the comparison betwen the ’88 Dodgers and the ’09 Yankees. I just think it’s salient to point out — in the context of the discussion — that head-to-head record over eight games doesn’t definitively prove that the Yanks should expect to lose a playoff series with Boston.

      As to the “drugged out fat cats” and the “scrappy/refuse to lose ‘tude”, that’s all meaningless.

    34. Raf
      June 19th, 2009 | 11:50 am

      MJ wrote:

      I just think it’s salient to point out — in the context of the discussion — that head-to-head record over eight games doesn’t definitively prove that the Yanks should expect to lose a playoff series with Boston.

      Yeah, that too.

      Just pointing out that the Dodgers were pwn3d by the Mets in 88, yet won 94 games, do they qualify as “mediocre?”

    35. Raf
      June 19th, 2009 | 11:51 am

      MJ wrote:

      As to the “drugged out fat cats” and the “scrappy/refuse to lose ‘tude”, that’s all meaningless.

      Makes for good copy, tho’

    36. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 11:51 am

      Have you been watching the same team as I have, Steve? They lead the league in comebacks, and even the games they lose they typically have attempted comebacks and fallen short. I’m not saying they have been great, but one thing you can’t deny is that they refuse to give up.

    37. MJ
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:12 pm

      but one thing you can’t deny is that they refuse to give up.
      ———-
      Moreover, those ’88 Dodgers — as scrappy as they might’ve been and as pronounced as their refuse to lose ‘tude might’ve been — still probably went through stretches of games where they lost 3 or 4 games in a row in dull and uninspiring fashion.

    38. June 19th, 2009 | 12:12 pm

      Have you been watching the same team as I have, yagottagotomo1?

      From May 22nd through June 18th, the New York Yankees have gone 13-12. Just as was the case in their first 28 games of the season, with this mark, New York has played, and looked like, a mediocre ballclub. Actually, it’s worse than this when you consider that Willy Aybar and Luis Castillo handed the Yankees two wins during this period. New York’s record should be more like 11-14 over these last 25 games rather than the 13-12 that it’s been, in reality.

    39. Pat F
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:20 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Pat F wrote:
      anybody can beat anybody at any time.

      What the Nationals did to the Yankees in this series hardly ever happens. So, how can it happen at any time?

      this is precisely the point. it doesn’t matter with what regularity it has happened in the past, or what the probability is. the point is anyone can beat anyone at any time. 0-100? could be a three game sweep on the way for the 0-fer squad. how do we know this? it just happened. despite how improbably it was that the nats would be the yankees, they did. hence, anyone can beat anybody at any time.

      it’s embarrassing, but it’s the case. the issue is that had we won the games, they’d be in our “layup” record that you laid out (“if not for the games against baltimore, washington, and minnesota…”). when we lose, they are just in our general “non-layup” record that you laid out. and that’s not a fair point.

    40. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:27 pm

      Steve, you totally ignored my point. You questioned their attitude, and I pointed out that they rarely don’t make a comeback attempt. They have a refuse to lose attitude, the results just don’t always match that.

    41. June 19th, 2009 | 12:44 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      Steve, you totally ignored my point. You questioned their attitude, and I pointed out that they rarely don’t make a comeback attempt. They have a refuse to lose attitude, the results just don’t always match that.

      No, I didn’t understand your point. I thought you were asking me what I saw when I watched the Yankees play. And, I answered that.

      What about the Yanks attitude and the fact that so of these games have been close? Doesn’t matter. You either win or you lose – as Brian Cashman said the other day…it’s all about winning.

      Remember the 1996 Yanks? “We play today, we win today, das it…”

      That’s an attitude – backed by results. All you hear from these Yankees is “We’ll get ‘em tomorrow” – and, it’s not happening.

    42. MJ
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:50 pm

      What about the Yanks attitude and the fact that so of these games have been close? Doesn’t matter. You either win or you lose – as Brian Cashman said the other day…it’s all about winning.

      Remember the 1996 Yanks? “We play today, we win today, das it…”

      That’s an attitude – backed by results. All you hear from these Yankees is “We’ll get ‘em tomorrow” – and, it’s not happening.
      ——-
      You’re contradicting yourself. If it’s only about results, then attitude doesn’t matter. And if attitude matters, then results don’t matter because you’re judging someone on attitude alone.

      To point out that the Yanks motto was an attitude backed is a great example of confusing correlation with causation.

    43. MJ
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:51 pm

      *To point out that the Yanks motto was an attitude backed is a great example of confusing correlation with causation.

      Typos galore…

      What I meant to say was “To point out that the ’96 Yanks motto was an attitude backed by results is a great example of confusing correlation with causation.”

    44. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 12:53 pm

      Steve, I asked you nothing of the sort. Someone brought up the 94 win Dodgers as a parallel. You distinguished them based on their never die attitude. I said that this team also has that attitude. You responded by saying that the team has been mediocre in 25 game spurts, and I responded by saying that has nothing to do with their attitude. You keep conflating attitude with results, but that makes attitude meaningless- those Mets had more wins than the Dodgers, so they must have been scrappier, right? Obviously not. I find it amzing that you can’t concede that these Yankees have a never say die attitude when they lead the league in comebacks and walk offs. God forbid you ever give even an inch on the most obvious and fact based of points. You have referenced the comebacks yourself many times to discount the wins against the Twins.

    45. June 19th, 2009 | 1:09 pm

      When did I say the 2009 Yankees = the 1988 Dodgers?

      I said: “Oh, I think I see what you guys are trying to say…The 1988 Mets = the 2009 Red Sox and the 1988 Dodgers = the 2009 Yanks.”

      I’m not the one who brought up that comparison. And, frankly, I still don’t see how what happened in 1988 between the Mets and Dodgers has anything to do with the Yankees and Red Sox now.

      In fact, I don’t care about the Red Sox, or the Rays, or any other team that someone wants to bring up in an attempt to deflect away from the Yankees.

      MY POINT HERE is simple: The Yankees 2009 season to date has been 28 games of mediocrity, followed by 13 games of serendipity, followed by 25 games of mediocrity. Basically, it’s been a couple of thin slices of luck sandwiched by two thick oversized slices of mediocrity. And, to me, when you digest that sandwich, you mostly taste the mediocrity.

      I’m just focusing on THE YANKEES OF 2009 and how they have played, to date, THIS SEASON.

      And, those are “fact based” points – “God forbid.”

    46. yagottagotomo1
      June 19th, 2009 | 1:15 pm

      Please Steve, stop changing your argument. Someone, not you and I never said you, brought up the Dodgers and you responded by saying those Dodgers were different because of their attitude. I responded to that point. instead of addressing my response, you are now changing your answer. That’s fine, but don’t make it like this is what you were saying all along, because you didn’t- you differentiated the Dodgers based on their attitude, a stance that does not hold up. In regard to your new point, I think the idea is that season series is not the be all end all, that a team can get destroyed and still win in the postseason.

    47. Raf
      June 19th, 2009 | 1:24 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      In fact, I don’t care about the Red Sox, or the Rays, or any other team that someone wants to bring up in an attempt to deflect away from the Yankees.

      The point is all this slicing and dicing and worrying you and others are doing is much ado about nothing because it has happened before with other teams in other years. Unless you think that the NY Yankees possess some kind of innate ability that renders them immune to the laws of _________, I think it’s particularly relevant to fill in the context.

      Is it a problem that the Yanks are 0-8 against the Sox? No, not really, because the Rays have played better against the Sox, and are currently in 3rd place. Does being 0-8 against the Sox make the Yanks a mediocre team? Well the Dodgers got their asses handed to them by the Mets, and they won 94 games. Is a 94 win team mediocre? The Yanks last year went 9-9 against the Sox, and 11-7 against the Rays. They won 89 games and finished behind BOTH the Red Sox and Rays, should we declare them AL Champs because of that?

      These are also “fact based” points…

    48. Raf
      June 19th, 2009 | 1:28 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      I think the idea is that season series is not the be all end all, that a team can get destroyed and still win in the postseason.

      Yeah, that too, piggybacking on MJ wrote:

      I just think it’s salient to point out — in the context of the discussion — that head-to-head record over eight games doesn’t definitively prove that the Yanks should expect to lose a playoff series with Boston.

      As well as

      Raf wrote:

      Just pointing out that the Dodgers were pwn3d by the Mets in 88, yet won 94 games, do they qualify as “mediocre?”

      In response to

      Tresh Fan wrote:

      Let’s not forget the fact that the Bombers are 0-8 vs Boston this year. If the Red Sox are just as mediocre as the Yankees wouldn’t their head to head record be a bit more balanced?

    49. bags
      June 19th, 2009 | 1:47 pm

      I just did an analysis in which I took all the games where the Yankees have a winning record and compared them with all the games where they have a losing record this season. In the winning games they are 37-0. In the losing games they are 0-29. This tells me that if you look at the games in which the Yankees have a losing record and throw out the winning ones (which only Yankee fanboys wearing blinding blinders care about) they are a very bad team.

    50. Pat F
      June 19th, 2009 | 4:49 pm

      pretty good spot there bags, very funny. what’s wild is that it is very pertinent here. take out some wins – for whatever reason you want to – and any team is going to look mediocre. take out some losses – for whatever reason, like mo blowing a 2 run lead with 2 outs, or burnett surrendering a 6-0 lead, things that aren’t likely to happen again and can therefore be construed as “lucky” for the opposition – and any team is going to start looking a lot better than they are. the yankees can easily be better than 37-29 (great team) or worse than 37-29 (mediocre team). this is true of any team. there are a lot of 90-72 teams that missed the playoffs by one game that could have easily been 92-70 and made the playoffs if not for a few bad breaks. this is life in baseball. that’s why you just have to go with what you have win wise, no matter how you got there.

    51. June 21st, 2009 | 2:18 am

      [...] ‘09 Yanks: More Mediocrity Than Anything Else / Teixeira’s Future… [...]

    52. June 21st, 2009 | 10:30 pm

      [...] away that small feasting off bad teams this season and what you have left tells you how the Yankees fair when they have to play a team that’s decent or better. [...]

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.