• Same Ol’, Same Ol’, But Different?

    Posted by on June 22nd, 2009 · Comments (11)

    Here’s the Yankees W-L record, after their first 69 games of the year, for every season since 2000:

    Year	W	L	 GB
    2009	38	31	 4.0
    2008	36	33	 6.0
    2007	35	34	10.0
    2006	39	30	 2.0
    2005	36	33	 5.0
    2004	44	24	-4.5
    2003	40	29	-0.5
    2002	43	26	 1.5
    2001	39	30	 2.5
    2000	37	32	 1.0
    

    It’s interesting that, from 2000 through 2008, New York’s average W-L mark is 39-30 – which is pretty much where the Yankees are this season after 69 games. And, only twice in the “2000′s” have the Yankees been in first place after their first 69 games of the season (2003 and 2004).

    So, if the Yankees are where they are now, and that’s pretty much where they usually are after 69 games, why does it feel like things in Yankeeland are not going all that great now? Is it because a half-billion dollars worth of spending this off-season has led to higher expectations? Or, is it just because the Yankees have played so poorly in their last 12 games? What do you think?

    Comments on Same Ol’, Same Ol’, But Different?

    1. yagottagotomo1
      June 22nd, 2009 | 12:56 pm

      Played poorly against bad competition. When they struggled against Boston, it bothered me, but it did not really give me doubts about the quality of the team. Losing to bad teams, however, is a different story.

    2. YankCrank
      June 22nd, 2009 | 1:48 pm

      I find this pretty interesting Steve, but idk if we can take much from it. There’s been so much organizational change-over since 2000 (basically only four players and no coaches left from 2000) that a serious case or connection would be hard to make.

      However, Mo makes a really good point about our feelings on this year. It sucks when we’re outplayed by good teams like the Sox or Rays, but it’s something to worry about when you drop important games to the soft spots in your schedule. If we finish anywhere in the range f 2-3 games out of a playoff spot this year, i’ll think back on this last week as to why.

    3. Pat F
      June 22nd, 2009 | 1:54 pm

      really interesting point here steve. i was actually thinking about the same thing last night when i checked the standings after our loss and couldn’t believe what good shape we were still in terms of general records around baseball. feels much worse than that, and i definitely thought to myself it was because of the last 12 games. not just the results, but the way the team has played. have not been able to put together consistently good baseball, and i have to put almost all of that on the offense. they have really only put together three good offensive games (friday/sunday mets, friday marlins) over that stretch. really been tough to watch.

    4. Corey
      June 22nd, 2009 | 2:11 pm

      its the last week that’s gettin ya. It really, and i mean really, stings to lose 2/3 to the marlins AND the nationals, AKA the basement dwellers. Couple that with the fact that if the nationals had a decent CFer, they likely would have won that first game. Couple that with the gift win from the mets, and things just havn’t been as rosey this past week or 2. That’s why I love baseball though, the lows are really low and the highs are really high.

    5. Raf
      June 22nd, 2009 | 2:26 pm

      Is because of a half-billion dollars worth of spending this off-season…

      That statement is inaccurate.

    6. copela26
      June 22nd, 2009 | 3:52 pm

      Its really just the past 12 games they haven’t been hitting thats making this team look bad. Tex and Arod’s bats have been non existant and they are bound to come around. The starting pitchings still been good and Cashmans bullpen od doom as you like to call it has been excellent (except tomko i have no idea what hes doing on the team). Once they start hitting again theyll be fine.

    7. June 22nd, 2009 | 4:28 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Is because of a half-billion dollars worth of spending this off-season…
      That statement is inaccurate.

      Well, it would help if my grammar was better! Just edited it to read: Is it because a half-billion dollars worth of spending this off-season has led to higher expectations?

    8. yagottagotomo1
      June 22nd, 2009 | 5:53 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Well, it would help if my grammar was better! Just edited it to read: Is it because a half-billion dollars worth of spending this off-season has led to higher expectations?

      Lol. I’m pretty sure he is rehashing his argument with you about whether the Yankees actually spent half a billion this offseason, being that it is not a lump sum payment.

    9. Raf
      June 22nd, 2009 | 5:59 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      Steve Lombardi wrote:
      Well, it would help if my grammar was better! Just edited it to read: Is it because a half-billion dollars worth of spending this off-season has led to higher expectations?
      Lol. I’m pretty sure he is rehashing his argument with you about whether the Yankees actually spent half a billion this offseason, being that it is not a lump sum payment.

      Yep, lol… I guess Steve isn’t the only one with poor grammar :)

    10. yagottagotomo1
      June 22nd, 2009 | 6:10 pm

      @ Raf:
      Hey! Lol is perfectly good internet grammar!

    11. June 23rd, 2009 | 11:02 pm

      [...] Kennedy to begin rehab work this week / Same Ol’, Same Ol’, But Different? [...]

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.