• 2010 Yankees & 2006 Tigers

    Posted by on September 25th, 2010 · Comments (8)

    At the close of business on September 1, 2006, the Detroit Tigers had a 5 1/2 game lead in the A.L. Central. Over their next 27 games, they would go 11-16 and ended up in second place in the Central. But, at least, they won the A.L. Wildcard berth for the post-season that year. Well, maybe “backed-in” would be a better way to put it – rather than “won.”

    At the close of business on September 1, 2010, the New York Yankees had a one game lead in the A.L. East. Since that time, they’ve gone 9-13 and now sit in second place in the East. But, at least, it appears they should win the A.L. Wildcard berth for the post-season this year. Well, maybe “back-in” would be a better way to put it – rather than “win.”

    Now, the good news is that the 2006 Tigers went on to win the A.L. pennant in 2006. But, will the 2010 Yankees do the same?

    Think about the teams that the Tigers played in October of 2006 – to make it to the World Series – the Yankees and the A’s. The teams the ’06 Tigers played in the ALDS and ALCS rolled over for them.

    And, I don’t think that the 2010 Minnesota Twins are the 2006 Yankees. And, even if New York makes it past the ALDS this year, I don’t think the 2010 Tampa Bay Rays and/or 2010 Texas Rangers are the 2006 Oakland A’s. So, if asked, I would say the odds of the Yankees reaching the World Series this year are very slim. Really, really, slim.

    Frankly, at this point, especially given the looks on the faces of the Yankees as they dropped today’s game to the Red Sox, I fully expect New York to drop four of their last seven games scheduled this year. That would give them 96 wins on the season – which, on paper, is very impressive…much like the 95 wins that the Tigers finished with in 2006.

    And, if the Yankees win only three of seven from here out, that’s still more than enough to lock up the Wildcard in the A.L. this season. So, there will be a post-season in Yankeeland this year. But, it’s going to be a short one…mark my words on it. And, that’s where the 2010 Yankees will be nothing like the 2006 Tigers.

    Comments on 2010 Yankees & 2006 Tigers

    1. Evan3457
      September 26th, 2010 | 4:49 am

      And, I don’t think that the 2010 Minnesota Twins are the 2006 Yankees.

      I’d like to examine this just a bit.

      When the Yankees were hot earlier in the year, you chalked it up to their playing well against bad teams, even if that wasn’t entirely accurate, as the Yanks went 19-12 against the good teams.

      But the Twins have been very hot for the last two months, so now, with a better record than the Yankees, they’ve vaulted ahead of the Yankees in terms of league pecking order.

      Or have they? The Twins have a great record since the break: 46-20, nearly .700 ball (and it was over .700 before they dropped the last two after clinching). But who have the Twins beaten in that time? Here’s who:

      White Sox: 10-3
      Indians: 8-4
      Tigers: 2-3
      Royals: 6-0
      Angels: 2-1
      A’s: 4-2
      Mariners: 5-1
      Rays: 2-2
      Rangers: 4-3
      Orioles (pre-Showalter): 3-1

      If you’re scoring at home, that’s 10-3 against the White Sox (against whom the Yanks went 4-2 this year, and 2-1 in the 2nd half), 6-5 against “good teams”, and 30-12 against the bad teams. (Are the White Sox a good team, or a mediocre one? They can’t be “good” vs. the Twins, and “mediocre” vs. the Yanks.)

      If the Yanks 1st half record against the bad teams is not counted as proof they’re a good team, should this big 2nd be counted so heavily in the Twins favor?

      With this statement, you seem to be implying that beating up on the bad teams is a minus for the Yankees when it comes to evaluating their overall level, but a plus for the Twins. Well, I say it should count as a plus for both.

    2. Evan3457
      September 26th, 2010 | 4:51 am

      And by the way, you know what the Rangers’ record the last 54 games is?

      27-27.

    3. September 26th, 2010 | 9:51 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      .I’d like to examine this just a bit.

      2010 Twins team ERA+ to date: 110
      2006 Yankees team ERA+: 103

      Plus, look at the Twins top four SP this season vs. the Yankees top 4 SP in 2006. Which group is/was more likely to win a 5 game post-season series?

    4. September 26th, 2010 | 9:52 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And by the way, you know what the Rangers’ record the last 54 games is?27-27.

      They’re still a better team, esp. in a post-season series, than the 2006 Oakland A’s.

    5. MJ Recanati
      September 26th, 2010 | 10:14 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      They’re still a better team, esp. in a post-season series, than the 2006 Oakland A’s.

      How could you know that at this point? What are you basing your argument on? Pessimism towards the Yankees aside — and I share it completely at this point — still doesn’t mean that the 2010 Rangers are a better team than the 2006 A’s.

    6. September 26th, 2010 | 10:31 am

      @ MJ Recanati:

      2010 Rangers to date: Scored 744 runs, Allowed 648 runs. Pythagorean W-L: 87-67

      Actual record: 86-68

      2006 A’s: Scored 771 runs, Allowed 727 runs. Pythagorean W-L: 85-77

      Actual record: 93-69

      2006 A’s were a lucky team – maybe by 8 wins. Plus, the Rangers pitching this season is better than the A’s in 2006. Note the runs allows.

    7. MJ Recanati
      September 26th, 2010 | 10:50 am

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      Runs are down in 2010 relative to 2006.

      You’re conflating your frustration with the Yankees and the feeling that they won’t make it past the ALDS or the ALCS with an attempt to make a correlation between the ’06 A’s that “rolled over” vs. the Rangers that you think will be a tough out.

      If you didn’t have a horse in the race, I don’t think you’d be trying to make a connection that isn’t there.

    8. INAC
      September 26th, 2010 | 12:01 pm

      I remember when the 2006 playoffs began about how anyone would beat the Twins pitching, especially Johan.

      So much for that.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.