• Yankees: Thank You O’s

    Posted by on April 27th, 2011 · Comments (25)

    Good news – the Yankees are 12-8 and in first place in the A.L. East.

    Bad news – the Yankees are 4-0 this season against Baltimore and 8-8 when they play someone other than the O’s.

    Now, at that rate, the Yankees will still be a 90-win team in 2011. But, anyone who thinks the Yankees are going to win 95-100 games this season, based on their 12-8 record to date, is fooling themselves.

    Comments on Yankees: Thank You O’s

    1. April 27th, 2011 | 10:14 am

      If you had April 27th in the local poll of when Steve will write his first post discounting Yankee wins, congratulations! You won the pot! ;-)

    2. MJ Recanati
      April 27th, 2011 | 10:59 am

      Brent wrote:

      If you had April 27th in the local poll of when Steve will write his first post discounting Yankee wins, congratulations! You won the pot!

      LOL, I was going to write this myself but you beat me to the punch.

    3. Pat F
      April 27th, 2011 | 11:14 am

      Steve, if you’re going to take this standpoint every year that is certainly your prerogative. I join the others that see it as fundamentally flawed logic, but we’ll agree to disagree on that point. However, at the very least how about a little accountability? You beat this very drum incessantly in 2009, talking about the Yankees record against certain teams, the Castillo drop, etc. all pointing towards the Yankees not being as good as their record would indicate. They won 103 games and the World Series. Same thing last year from you, 95 wins and two games shy of the World Series. You can ignore these facts in your analysis this year if you choose, but you can’t ignore these facts as they pertain to how wrong this “logic” was for you in 2009 and 2010.

    4. April 27th, 2011 | 11:23 am

      @ Pat F:
      @ MJ Recanati:
      @ Brent:

      You’ve seen the Yankees play this year. Do you think they’re a team that’s going to win 95-100 games, as they are on pace to do, based on their 12-8 record? Or, do you feel that they’ve padded that record by beating up on the O’s, and, outside of that, they’ve struggled to play .500 baseball?

    5. Corey Italiano
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:00 pm

      I thought you thought that the Orioles were good though?

    6. Pat F
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:07 pm

      I think that:

      A. It’s a small sample. The season is barely three weeks old; and

      B. Part of having a great record is taking care of business against bad teams and holding serve against elite teams. A scratch golfer doesn’t arrive at a zero handicap by shooting 72 on every course regardless of level of difficulty. He shoots better on easier courses and lower on harder courses. A good baseball team won’t play to a .600 winning percentage against all quality of teams. They should have a better record against inferior competition and it should be tougher to win games against tougher competition. This isn’t a “bad sign”, rather it’s just natural. Would you not admit that it hasn’t hurt the Yankees, the way you proposed, the last two years?

      To answer your direct question, I do think the Yankees will get into the mid-90′s in wins. But it has little to do with anything that has happened so far this year, and rather my general perception of their talent level versus that of their competition. I think a more macro analysis tells us more than anything that has happened so far this season, especially given that the Yankees have gotten off to an about expectations start.

    7. Pat F
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:13 pm

      But again, I’m not as interested in an analysis of this season. I think we’ll agree to disagree. What I’m looking at is you applying this reasoning in 2009, and it being proven wrong. Ditto 2010. It is disingenuous to be right back at it again in 2011 as if this is a really sound theory when you’re 0 for your last 2 unless you at least acknowledge how off base it was the last two seasons.

    8. April 27th, 2011 | 12:22 pm

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      I thought you thought that the Orioles were good though?

      I thought they would be better. And, based on the way they played the Yankees, I would say that I was wrong.

    9. April 27th, 2011 | 12:24 pm

      Pat F wrote:

      What I’m looking at is you applying this reasoning in 2009, and it being proven wrong. Ditto 2010. It is disingenuous to be right back at it again in 2011 as if this is a really sound theory when you’re 0 for your last 2 unless you at least acknowledge how off base it was the last two seasons.

      Was I “Oh” for 2010? Really? What place did the Yankees finish? What was their record? OK, yes, they won 95 in 2010. But, would they have done that if Boston, who they played often, was not crippled?

    10. MJ Recanati
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:29 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      What place did the Yankees finish?

      In your numerous attempts to discount wins, you’ve never placed a threshold or marker on what place the team would finish in.

      Doing so now represents (again) a moving of the goalposts.

    11. Pat F
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:34 pm

      Yes, you certainly were. Just as in 2009, you pointed out all year how the Yankees really weren’t as their record indicated, as you are here. They had the third best record in baseball and got to Game 6 of an ALCS. We can split hairs all day, but that is a “good” team by any fathomable definition of the term. So, you’re proposition all year that the Yankees weren’t as “good” as their record indicated was incorrect.

    12. April 27th, 2011 | 12:35 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      You can’t play the “what if” game on a legitimate level on something that’s finite and finished. The World Series in 2009 is already won. The 2010 season is done with the Yankees winning 95 games. If you wish to argue what would happen if the Red Sox didn’t collapse, I can argue the “what if’s” on the flip side. It’s a cycle that only tries to manipulate something that was already done and finished (the 2010 season).

    13. Raf
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:35 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Do you think they’re a team that’s going to win 95-100 games, as they are on pace to do, based on their 12-8 record?

      Regardless of their current pace, I thought they’d win 95-100 before the season based on the players that they have.

    14. Pat F
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:38 pm

      And I’m not trying to make this into a bigger deal than it needs to be. I’m wrong all of the time. But when you take a stance as often as you did and defend it as much you did, you have to have some accountability. Especially when you want to take that stance and defend it again the very next year.

    15. Raf
      April 27th, 2011 | 12:53 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      But, would they have done that if Boston, who they played often, was not crippled?

      Maybe, maybe not; they were 9-9 against them last year (95-67, 2nd place), and the year before (103-59, 1st place), and the year before that (89-73, 3rd place).

    16. MJ Recanati
      April 27th, 2011 | 1:14 pm

      Pat F wrote:

      And I’m not trying to make this into a bigger deal than it needs to be. I’m wrong all of the time. But when you take a stance as often as you did and defend it as much you did, you have to have some accountability. Especially when you want to take that stance and defend it again the very next year.

      Well put, for all of us.

    17. April 27th, 2011 | 1:40 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      @ Brent:

      Still waiting for your answer.

      You’ve seen the Yankees play this year. Do you think they’re a team that’s going to win 95-100 games, as they are on pace to do, based on their 12-8 record? Or, do you feel that they’ve padded that record by beating up on the O’s, and, outside of that, they’ve struggled to play .500 baseball?

    18. MJ Recanati
      April 27th, 2011 | 1:56 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Do you think they’re a team that’s going to win 95-100 games, as they are on pace to do, based on their 12-8 record?

      Yes, I do think the Yanks are a team that will win 95 or more games. It won’t always be pretty but their offense is tremendous and that’s typically enough to get to 95 wins.

    19. bags
      April 27th, 2011 | 2:57 pm

      This just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

      So now we are not only discounting wins against “bad” teams.

      We are defining a team as bad because of the way they played the Yankees.

      If you take this to its logical extreme, any team that loses to us looks bad in the process. And is therefore discounted. By very definition of the fact that they lost to us.

      Excellent. I love it.

    20. April 27th, 2011 | 3:57 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Yes, I do think the Yanks are a team that will win 95 or more games. It won’t always be pretty but their offense is tremendous and that’s typically enough to get to 95 wins.

      Ditto.

    21. Corey Italiano
      April 27th, 2011 | 5:05 pm

      Bottom line, I think that the Yankees are a 90-95 win team and that it will be enough to make it to the postseason.

    22. Evan3457
      April 27th, 2011 | 9:19 pm

      …and, as inevitable as the leaves on the trees comes the first discounting of legitimate Yankee wins by Steve.

      And just as inevitable comes the first rejoinder by me. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Anyway…
      ==========================================

      Having just beat the Red Sox two in a row, the O’s are now 10-8 when not playing the Yankees. Are they a bad team? Really?

      The Yanks have played, to date, two teams that have winning records. They beat the Tigers 2 out of 3 the first series of the year. (STOP THE PRESSES!! Can’t count this series anymore, the Tigers lost today to drop to 12-12!) And they took 2 of 3 from a hot Rangers team a couple of weeks ago. Do these wins not count?

      (Side note: I have this theory; you don’t want to play bad teams early in the season because they don’t really know how bad they are yet, and haven’t given up on the year. Yanks are lucky they get the Indians and the Royals later on. By then, the sludge should have sunk to the bottom.)
      ====================================================
      The Duke of Wellington, on the French tactics at Waterloo:

      They came on in the same old way, and we defeated them in the same old way

    23. KPOcala
      April 27th, 2011 | 10:16 pm

      Steve, don’t you think it’s time to give some love to Cashman. He’s picked up Rick Reuschel, Hippo Vaughn, Jerry Narron, and a couple of other guys who I’m forgetting and is keeping the team on top. Without his foresight (and luck) the Yanks could be 6 down, easily. Even “The Genius of Beantown” is looking up in envy. BTW, I’ve written here and elsewhere that the Red Sox have serious holes in their team and it’s showing. The sports narrative that The Boys in Bristol is always set so that viewers always think that their team will wash the Yanks away. Even with the hand-wringing we as Yankee fans love to do the team has been a perrenial threat for the last 15 years. “Not too shabby, White. I’m going out for a cannoli…”

    24. bartleby
      April 29th, 2011 | 8:38 am

      The 2007 Red Sox were a pretty good team. They went 52-26 against AL teams with a worse-than-500 record, 35-34 against AL teams with a better-than-500 record.

      The 1998 Yankees were a pretty good team. They went 68-21 against AL teams with a worse-than-500 record, 32-24 against AL teams with a better-than-500 record.

      Maybe that’s how good teams compile good records, by beating up on the weak and hanging on against the strong.

    25. Greg H.
      May 1st, 2011 | 9:27 am

      Brent wrote:

      If you had April 27th in the local poll of when Steve will write his first post discounting Yankee wins, congratulations! You won the pot!

      This is classic. All due respect, the rest of the thread is window dressing.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.