• 2011 = 2002

    Posted by on September 25th, 2011 · Comments (11)

    Does this year’s Yankees team seem a lot like the 2002 Yankees to anyone else besides me?  Or, am I just the only one seeing that?

    Comments on 2011 = 2002

    1. Raf
      September 25th, 2011 | 8:46 am

      I don’t really see it, what makes you say that?

      It seemed to me more like the 1994 team in that they’re doing quite well but you’re not sure exactly how

    2. September 25th, 2011 | 9:16 am

      Old starting pitchers on both squads. Starters carried by one guy being an ace – Mussina/Sabathia – albeit in somewhat off years for them. Another guy with a huge W-L difference (Wells/Nova.) Pitching carried by strong bullpens each year and lots of hitting. Soriano’s 02 and Granderson’s ’11 sort of look like each other.

      Basically, both teams led their league in wins – and it was the bullpen and hitters that did it, for the most part.

    3. Corey Italiano
      September 25th, 2011 | 10:13 am

      They had much better starting pitching in 2002. I’ll take duque and Andy + Wells, Rocket, Moose any day over what we have today.

      Plus I don’t agree that CC is having a somewhat off year…this is his best year in pinstripes despite a bad month of August.

    4. JeremyM
      September 25th, 2011 | 10:19 am

      I was just thinking the other day that this kind of reminds me of the 1996 team (I think of weird things when I mow the lawn). A deep bench with some old vets (Jones as Tim Raines, Chavez as either Hayes or Boggs), an ace (CC as Cone), a young guy with some moxie (Nova as Pettitte), a vet who has seen better days but still has some good ones (Garcia as Key), an old Cy Young winner that was a huge lift throughout the season but has run out of gas (Colon as Gooden), and a headcase (Burnett as Rogers). Of course, Jeter and Mo play themselves, and Montero is playing Ruben Rivera, with hopefully a much better career ahead of him.

      I’ll always wonder how far that 1994 team could’ve went. That was the first legitimate contender of my baseball lifetime. But at least we’re not Expos fans…..

    5. Raf
      September 25th, 2011 | 10:57 am

      @ JeremyM:
      I thought of the 1996 team as well, for the reasons you mentioned. I went with 1994 because of the best record in the league.

      I really enjoyed 93, that marked their return to contender status. Had they gotten Maddux or Cone, maybe they catch the Jays.

    6. 77yankees
      September 25th, 2011 | 11:13 am

      JeremyM wrote:

      I’ll always wonder how far that 1994 team could’ve went.

      Amazing to consider the what ifs…..If that 1994 team had won the World Series, does Torre ever end up managing the Yankees? Probably not. Boss would have given Showalter a couple more years slack through 1996.

      And would the Yankees had gone on to win four titles in five years under Showalter? Can’t say I think they would have there either.

    7. JeremyM
      September 25th, 2011 | 11:44 am

      @ Raf:
      1993 was great too. It really was kind of a surprise because they were so bad to start the 90s. I really thought they were going to pull it off for a minute there.

      As far as the strike, would the Expos still be in Montreal? Would Pedro have ever went to Boston? Would Javier Vacquez ever cost the Yankees the 04 ALCS? Tons of what-ifs. :)

    8. Evan3457
      September 25th, 2011 | 12:03 pm

      The starting pitching was much deeper and well established in 2002. Didn’t matter in the playoffs, though, as the Angels beat up everyone who started against them. That starting staff was 3rd in the AL in ERA. This team’s defense is a lot better than that team’s. Martin much better than Posada, Tex much better than Giambi, Cano better than Soriano, Gardner way ahead of Rondell White, Granderson way ahead of aging Bernie, and Swisher better than Mondesi. The only matchup where the 2002 team might be better is an aging Ventura over a hurt A-Rod; even Jeter probably was just as good this year, his improved technique making up for his loss of speed. This year’s pen is better and deeper, too, although the 2002 pen was strong. In addition, the AL East is much deeper and tougher now. In 2002, the West was the strongest division in the league. This year, the West is weaker. The Central stunk, just like always.

      If you say “it’s like 2002″ because you expect the Rangers to beat them up in the 1st round, well, it’s possible, but not likely. And, in fact, they might get Detroit in the 1st round now, because Texas passed them last night.

    9. Jim TreshFan
      September 25th, 2011 | 12:06 pm

      I don’t really see this as a Deja-Vu-All-Over-Again of 2002. I remember the ’02 team as a kind of “re-boot” if you will. Gone were Brosius, Tino and Paulie O. Those were big shoes to fill, especially in the clubhouse. When they got whupped in the ALDS that year I thought, “Yeah, they miss those guys.”

      Speaking of ’02, I went to see Moneyball yesterday. It wasn’t all that bad.

    10. EHawk
      September 25th, 2011 | 7:13 pm

      Speaking of 2002 just got back from seeing Moneyball and it was a great movie. Mostly focuses on the 2002 season for the A’s when they had that 20 game winning streak…But a great story and I think Brad Pitt might get an Oscar nomination for best actor…I highly recommended the movie…Being a GM for a major league baseball team has to be one of the coolest jobs out there! My favorite scene was when he was working the phones doing the Ricardo Rincon trade….also his talk with David Justice was great as well.

    11. KPOcala
      September 25th, 2011 | 9:43 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan, I always thought that the Yanks ran into a hot Angel buzz-saw back in ’02. It seemed like every ball the Angels hit had eyes, not that some of that sort of luck didn’t help the great Yankee teams of the 90′s. It’s nice to be good, but being good and lucky gives an illusion of greatness. I’ll never accept that the Angels were better than the Yankees that year…

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.