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.

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.

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?

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…

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.

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.”

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.

*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.”