Hmm…for some reason, the system won’t let me post some Tiny URLs of my searches at Baseball Reference, so let me suggest that you, Steve, try any of the following 4 searches for yourself.

IP 50 or more, ERA+ 110 or better
IP 50 or more, ERA+ 120 or better
IP 50 or more, (H + BB)/IP 1.25 or lower (That’s WHIP)
IP 50 or more, K/BB ratio 2.0 or better

I would think any of those would be more significant than the 10 inning minimums you cite in your four searches. You’ll never guess what they show…

Steve Lombardi wrote:

@ Raf:

Stick was the GM from Aug. 1990 thru 1995

Watson was the GM from 1996 thru Feb, 1998.
Watson’s boys – and some of Stick’s – went on to win rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. (The ring in 1996 was mostly Stick’s guys.)

And Cashman was GM from Feb 98 to present. Same thing. Guys Cashman, Watson & Michael acquired all won rings.

Steve, all of the numbers you just quoted were pretty meaningless, unless you believe the Yankees pitched better this year than in 1998. Total number of pitchers with a certain ERA+ is pretty meaningless. I would think you would want to be somewhere in the middle of those lists (meaning you have steady group of contributors, not a revolving door).

Steve Lombardi wrote:

@ Evan3457:
At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding and the production is detailed by the stats. Looking at names, resumes, and weighing feelings leads to subjective reasoning, no?

That’s true, but it should still be done as a reality check against selective use of statistics, and cherry-picking data, endpoints, and qualifiers. In the same manner than no one really scouts players via high school and college stats (“moneyball scouting”) without sending a scout to actually look and give a subjective evaluation.

@ Evan3457:
At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding and the production is detailed by the stats. Looking at names, resumes, and weighing feelings leads to subjective reasoning, no?

@ Raf:
Stick was the GM from Aug. 1990 thru 1995
Watson was the GM from 1996 thru Feb, 1998.

Watson’s boys – and some of Stick’s – went on to win rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. (The ring in 1996 was mostly Stick’s guys.)

Steve Lombardi wrote:

@ Raf:

The teams that Michael and Watson built went on to win several World Championships. How many teams, built by Cashman – and not including a cadre of players inherited from Michael and Watson – have gone on to win a ring?

That still doesn’t excuse the bad moves and mistakes that they’ve made.

Anyway, why does Watson get any credit, he inherited a cadre of players from Michael, didn’t he?

Steve Lombardi wrote:

@ Evan3457:

Or, how about these stats:

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/s7ENj

where 2009=2007 and where 2008 is better than 2009.

Again, it’s the context. Did you ever really believe in Farnsworth, Veras, Ramirez, Giese or Albaladejo? If not, are their stats worth citing?

For the 2009 staff, the same with Melancon, and to a lesser extent, Bruney. Bruney at least came through big-time in a handful of key games.

Look; examine the comparison of Clemens/Hughes (2007) vs. Joba (2009) in the #4 slot. By any slot you name, Clemens/Hughes will look better; ERA, ERA+, RSAA, FIP. But, qualitatively, were they really much, if any, better? I don’t remember feeling exceptionally confident when they started. Not much worse or better than when Joba was regular in the rotation, before they started to futz around with his innings.

RSAA and ERA+ says the #4 slot in 2007 was better. Same thing with Veras/Ramirez (2008) vs. Coke (2009)

Do you really believe the stats are right about those comparisons? Veras inherent wildness? Ramirez’ inability to pitch in any kind of a tight spot?

Think about it.

@ Evan3457:

Or, better yet, how about these stats:

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/s2sFd

where, once again, 2009=2007 and where 2008 is better than 2009.

Let’s just say that in this one case, I think the 10 run gap it shows is very misleading.Steve Lombardi wrote:

@ Evan3457:
You calling RSAA a liar?

Let’s just say that in this one case, I think the 10 run gap it shows is very misleading.

Subjectively, I’m a heck of a lot more confident in this staff than I was vs. the Indians in 2007.

Subjectively, I could be kidding myself, of course. I’m a 100% believer, in waiting, and watching to see what does actually happen.