Everybody Wants Russell Martin?
Posted by Steve L. on November 28th, 2012 · Comments (101)
Well, at least a few teams are willing to give him a multi-year deal.
Me? I wouldn’t do it.
| Rk | Player | WAR/pos | G | From | To | Age | PA | HR | RBI | BB | SO | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yadier Molina | 12.2 | 413 | 2010 | 2012 | 27-29 | 1602 | 42 | 203 | 120 | 150 | .295 | .351 | .438 |
| 2 | Buster Posey | 12.2 | 301 | 2010 | 2012 | 23-25 | 1238 | 46 | 191 | 117 | 181 | .317 | .384 | .509 |
| 3 | Carlos Ruiz | 10.9 | 367 | 2010 | 2012 | 31-33 | 1326 | 30 | 161 | 132 | 152 | .303 | .388 | .454 |
| 4 | Matt Wieters | 10.3 | 413 | 2010 | 2012 | 24-26 | 1646 | 56 | 206 | 155 | 290 | .253 | .326 | .423 |
| 5 | Miguel Montero | 8.6 | 366 | 2010 | 2012 | 26-28 | 1457 | 42 | 217 | 149 | 298 | .280 | .363 | .450 |
| 6 | Alex Avila | 7.0 | 361 | 2010 | 2012 | 23-25 | 1318 | 35 | 161 | 170 | 306 | .260 | .358 | .423 |
| 7 | Brian McCann | 6.4 | 392 | 2010 | 2012 | 26-28 | 1580 | 65 | 215 | 175 | 263 | .257 | .344 | .440 |
| 8 | Russell Martin | 5.7 | 355 | 2010 | 2012 | 27-29 | 1348 | 44 | 144 | 151 | 237 | .231 | .326 | .385 |
| 9 | Jonathan Lucroy | 4.6 | 307 | 2010 | 2012 | 24-26 | 1111 | 28 | 143 | 69 | 187 | .279 | .326 | .412 |
| 10 | Geovany Soto | 4.0 | 329 | 2010 | 2012 | 27-29 | 1222 | 45 | 146 | 137 | 283 | .234 | .325 | .416 |
| 11 | A.J. Pierzynski | 3.6 | 392 | 2010 | 2012 | 33-35 | 1523 | 44 | 181 | 66 | 150 | .278 | .316 | .432 |
| 12 | Kurt Suzuki | 3.4 | 383 | 2010 | 2012 | 26-28 | 1501 | 33 | 158 | 91 | 186 | .238 | .295 | .361 |
| 13 | Miguel Olivo | 2.6 | 329 | 2010 | 2012 | 31-33 | 1257 | 45 | 149 | 54 | 342 | .239 | .271 | .406 |
| 14 | John Buck | 2.3 | 364 | 2010 | 2012 | 29-31 | 1365 | 48 | 164 | 119 | 329 | .236 | .310 | .402 |
| 15 | Rod Barajas | 0.9 | 301 | 2010 | 2012 | 34-36 | 1037 | 44 | 125 | 64 | 194 | .225 | .285 | .406 |
.
There does not seem to be an alternative; the team is in a difficult position on this one.
I think the Yankees are hung here…
Either we let RM walk now and enter 2013 with a big question mark, or we sign him and block younger, cheaper options for 2014 and beyond.
I think RM gave us good work behind the dish; actually better than good. But his swing looked long and loopy to me, even in the second half. He was bailing out with his front shoulder and pulling his head too often. The AL caught up with him and exposed a weakness to sliders from right handed pitchers. I vote for letting him go and, given 1) the maturity of our pitching staff, and 2) how little we got from RM at the plate last year, go with the best defensive options we can throw out there, and not worry too much about the offensive side of the catcher’s spot.
This is what kills me with Cashman. There’s no foresight, no planning, no contingency plan – and then he’s backed into a corner, like they are with Martin.
Everyone knew Posada’s date of birth. The Yankees knew they were going to need a catcher as he got older. And, sure, the Yankees drafted and signed some kids with the hope that they would be ready.
But, where are those kids now? They’re not ready.
Yankees “prospects,” under Cashman, are never ready.
And, that’s why they are forced to throw money at a guy like Martin or bring in old-and-let’s hope guys like Freddy Garcia.
Every time the Yankees have a hole, it’s because Cashman’s plan somewhere failed and then they either have to spend, spend, spend, to address it, or, they have to sort through the dregs and pray that they can squeeze some miles out of someone who’s seen better days – because there’s no hope or help in the system.
#15 wrote:
The 2014 salary threshold might be a bigger issue than “blocking options” for 2014. If he can be signed and getting to a 2014 payroll acceptable to Hal Steinbrenner is possible, then they might not have a choice but to sign him.
Steve L. wrote:
As significantly, everyone knew the dates of expiration of the players’ contracts and of a luxury tax threshold in 2014 for years and since the collective bargaining agreement was finalized.
#15 wrote:
I’m starting to agree with this strategy. I was never that impressed with Stewart as a defensive catcher, even though that was his billing. It may be time for Romine to sink or swim. At least he can defend, even if he can’t hit a lick. I sure hope they don’t offer AJP a contract, but he probably stays put in Chicago.
Steve L. wrote:
Except when they are.
Two words: market value.
We’re looking at .211. The fact is that the market value on Martin is a lot higher than your basic run-of-the-mill .211 hitter.
Backed into a corner? The way I see it, the Yanks are backed into a corner only if they don’t re-sign Martin. Then they might have to do something truly stupid, like sign Pierzynski to a 4-year deal.
@ Steve L.:
You object to non-homegrown free agents to fill holes but I don’t understand why. Russell Martin filled a hole that internal options could not fill. Now, if the Yankees balk at Martin’s asking price, they’ll replace him with someone else, just as they replaced Posada with Martin.
I fail to see how you can accuse Cashman of a lack of foresight or preparedness here, with so many weeks before the 2013 season begins. The backup plan for Martin’s possible departure is most likely the same as it was when the Yankees decided that Posada could no longer play the position: a guy that will be a free agent or non-tendered.
Greg H. wrote:
I’m not sure his defense is anything more than average which, if he can’t hit, makes him more of a backup at the big league level. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, it’s just that Romine’s injuries have been holding him back to the point that you can’t even count on him to be the team’s primary backup coming into spring training (hence Eli Whiteside).
Evan3457 wrote:
I don’t think it has to be a binary choice of Martin or Pierzynski. I’m sure the Yankees are looking at the potential non-tenders out there, or even a budget guy like Kelly Shoppach.
MJ Recanati wrote:
Well it is frustrating constantly having to go outside of the organization to fill holes because there are rarely any internal options. An internal option would provide better value than an external one. Now the team will likely be forced to overpay a veteran free agent to fill the hole.
Evan3457 wrote:
They’re backed into a corner if there are no other catchers available, via FA, trade, or whatever.
Steve L. wrote:
That you may not agree with a plan does not necessarily mean there is no plan in place.
If Cashman had no plan, then we would’ve seen a panic move, a catcher signed already. Whiteside does not count, he was signed to a split contract which tells me that he’s a depth signing. He may see time with the big club, he may not.
If Martin’s asking price doesn’t come down, I’d be fine with splitting time between Cervelli and Stewart until Romine is ready. There aren’t alot of options out there unless the Yankees can somehow pry Carlos Ruiz from the Phillies.
Raf wrote:
Whoops!
http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2012/11/28/3703320/yankees-designate-eli-whiteside-for-assignment
LMJ229 wrote:
Probably will have to wait until after his suspension is over. Even so, I don’t think the Phillies will part with him.
LMJ229 wrote:
Which is an odd thing to say considering all the hand-wringing over Martin’s low batting average in 2012. Cervelli and Stewart can’t hit a lick.
He’s a Pirate. 2yrs, $17M. Didn’t see that one coming.
Raf wrote:
From a contender standpoint, I thought the Rangers would be the team to sign him. There really isn’t much going on in Pittsburgh, I don’t think he has connections there.
Oh well…
Maybe he just couldn’t wait to be reunited with AJ Burnett.
Well I guess now we will find out what Cashman’s back-up plan is.
LMJ229 wrote:
Probably going to be someone like Stewart with the hope that Romine can step up and take over some time during the season.
And, it probably doesn’t matter. Martin was a terrible hitter who took advantage of some homerun parks to pad his HR totals.
Steve L. wrote:
I will bookmark this quote and remind everyone of it as soon as people start bitching about how the Yankees shouldn’t have let Martin get away.
Martin was a player of diminishing offensive utility. I thought there was positive regression in there somewhere but it never materialized. I liked the man and I liked his handling of the pitching staff but he is a replaceable playeer.
MJ Recanati wrote:
Agreed. Like I said, I think we can go with Cervelli and Stewart. The Yankees don’t need offense at the catcher position. They should be able to generate enough offense elsewhere.
The Yanks were king-sized flops in the 2012 postseason. I’m delighted Martin is gone. They need to make changes, shake the team up. I’d like to unload Granderson and while we’re at it, adios Swisher.
Joseph Maloney wrote:
Yes, it’s always sensible to take a nine game sample in October and make wholesale changes to the team based on that. The 162 games that came before were statistically insignificant because the absurd, so-called “Steinbrenner Doctrine” apparently said so.
Reason #1355 why I’m glad most Yankees fans actually aren’t running the team.
Raf wrote:
And an impressive “plan” it is: Resign the 38-yr. old no. 2 starter, the 41-yr. old no. 3 starter, and the 43-yr. old closer to 1-yr. contracts, and it is a team that was swept in 4 games in the 2nd. round of the playoffs the previous season, setting a record for offensive futility in that round, that is 1 yr. older and without the services of a starting catcher, a starting right-fielder, or a left-handed D.H. And Cashman is pleased with this offseason “success.” (http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2012/11/30/yankees-cashman-pleased-with-offseason-success).
“I’ve got a lot of different holes to fill. We need to be careful how we allocate our remaining funds to make sure that we can fill all the holes.” Sounds like the “successful” implementation of a “plan.” Next step in the plan: “testing the waters for a new catcher” in Nashville.
McMillan wrote:
According to the article, Cashman calls this “flexibility.”
MJ Recanati wrote:
How about the 23-game sample from the last 3 Octobers?
@ MJ Recanati:
MJ, you are certainly entitled to take that approach. Yes, it is true the team wins 90 plus games every year. Yes, they make the postseason every year. But what is not true is the inane “nine game sample”. This isn’t about nine games. This is about a team that has very impressive winning seasons only to show up in the postseason and utterly collapse. 2011, what happened. 2010 the team makes the league finals and is saved from being swept by an 8th inning meltdown by Texas. The Tigers were swept in the World Series this year yet the Yankees couldn’t beat them once. There is something wrong here. There is something wrong when the best player on the team is allowed to walk down to first base when he hits a ground ball, and no one opens their mouth. There is a lack of something here, and I think that it is exposed over and over again when the competition gets tough.
This year the empty seats were more and more obvious, what was less obvious was the fact that YES had its lowest ratings for Yankee games in their 10 year history. I think the fan base is starting to get disgusted with a team that is less than what it appears to be.
Something is wrong here, MJ,I’m glad for you that you don’t see it. Enjoy the season.
Perhaps Cashman can trade Pineda and Campos to Seattle for Montero and Noesi. Montero can provide some offense at the position when not at D.H., and a more defense-oriented catcher (e.g. Stewart) can provide for an acceptable amount of offense until a long-term solution at catcher is available via trade or promotion. That would give the team “flexibility.” The team could use Noesi’s arm in the bullpen – he pitched well for them in 2011 and the bullpen is also thin.
McMillan wrote:
Still less than the 486 games played the last 3 years…
McMillan wrote:
How did the SF Giants do last offseason?
@ Ricketson:
From the Star-Ledger: “After Russell Martin’s departure, Yankees foresee next catcher coming from within organization:”
Cashman: “People should still be leery of us and afraid of us as the stalking horse and that’s good. I want them to think that.” http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2012/11/after_russell_martins_departur.html
An Interesting choice of words, “stalking horse.” Cashman of course knows something about stalking, having been stalked by a woman with whom he had an extramarital affair and tried to have committed to a psychiatric institution. With the Swisher trade the best trade Cashman has made in almost 15 years, people will certainly be “leery” and “afraid” of a New York Yankees baseball club represented this G.M. at the winter meetings in Nashville.
MJ Recanati wrote:
Reason #1 why I’m glad most Yankees fans actually aren’t running the team:
Raf wrote:
Raf wrote:
It would have been more than 23 had the team not been eliminated in the first round in one year and swept by Detroit last year…
Raf wrote:
http://waswatching.com/2012/11/07/cashman-not-looking-to-do-much-at-gm-meetings/
San Francisco Giants: 2008 – 12 (2 N.L. Championships, 2 World Championships)
2008: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
2009: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
2010: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
2011: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
2012: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
McMillan wrote:
I don’t think Seattle makes the trade.
Ricketson wrote:
Then perhaps Cashman can convince Posada to sign a 1-yr. contract; I wouldn’t be surprised if the thought of getting one more year out of Pettite, Jeter, Rivera, and Posada hasn’t crossed his feeble mind in the last 24 hrs.
McMillan wrote:
Which would still be less than 486
McMillan wrote:
Still didn’t answer the question regarding the moves the Giants made the past offseason…
But playing along, the Jints missed the playoffs 3 times in that timeframe you referenced, with 2nd, 3rd & 4th place finishes.
McMillan wrote:
MJ Recanati wrote:
Raf wrote:
That was my point: they did not have to sign 2 of their top 3 pitchers in the 2012 playoffs to 1-yr. contracts prior to the 2012 season, did they? Nor did they have to go out and get a Bumgarner. Their “plan” was to build a team capable of competing for a world championship in most years on a foundation of starting pitching, and they have not been in the business of signing their no. 2 and no. 3 starters to 1-yr. contracts each year, nor found themselves in the position N.Y. now finds itself with “a lot of different holes to fill,” while winning 2 world championships in the last 3 years.
You still didn’t answer the question regarding the best trade Cashman has made in 15 years?
Raf wrote:
Some of us feel that the 2 world championships from 2008 – 2012 are more significant than then 4 playoff appearances and 1 world championship in that period, and that a collapse is a collapse.
Joseph Maloney wrote:
McMillan wrote:
2011: Zito, 9 GS
2008: Zito, 17 losses, ERA over 5.
ERA+ of 85, 105, 94, 60, 94. A below average pitcher 4 of the 5 years, while pitching in a pitcher’s park, in the league without the DH, AND while being paid $18 million or more per year. AND he didn’t even pitch in the 2010 post-season when the Giants won it all.
If Cashman was boasting about signing Zito, you’d be roasting him for it.
McMillan wrote:
Debateable. At best.
Evan3457 wrote:
If Cashman was boasting about signing Zito, you’d be roasting him for it.
Absolutely not. If Sabean had signed Igawa and Pavano and Clemens for $28 mil. for one season, and Burnett, etc., and had only 2 league championships and 1 world championship with approx. $2 billion in player salaries paid for that period because of his failure to procure better postseason starting pitching… then I would be roasting Sabean for it.
And I neglected to include Bumgarner with Cain, Zito, and Lincecum.
Evan3457 wrote:
There have been organizations that have gone 100 yrs. – a century, without winning a world championship, and you call 2 world championships better than 1 world championship and 4 playoff appearances “debateable at best?” I don’t think so.
McMillan wrote:
A plan that, according to your timeline (2008-12), has failed more often than not
FWIW, the Jints were 6th in R/G, behind the Reds, Nats, Dodgers, Braves & Cards and 5th in ERA, bettering the Cards. So these teams with stronger pitching than the Giants, why didn’t they win the world series, if pitching is such a big deal?
MJ Recanati wrote:
Whiteside is 2013′s Chad Moeller. He’ll sit in AAA and wait for an injury. I don’t think his signing was done in response to Romine’s performance and injury history at all.
McMillan wrote:
You have to wait until at least the end of the offseason to grade Cashman’s offseason. It’s December 2nd for Christ sakes. A lot can happen still.
McMillan wrote:
the 23 vs. 486 game sample from the last 3 years you mean?
McMillan wrote:
Actually, you neglected to include Bumgarner instead of Zito.
McMillan wrote:
Debateable. At best.
Evan3457 wrote:
Well, that would refute his 1-2-3 theory :p
Corey wrote:
I was not grading the offseason; I was commenting on the “plan” or lack thereof. Either way, it was Brian “The Stalking Horse” Cashman himself that called the offseason a “success” so far. So far, this is the 2012 team 1 yr. older and without a starting catcher, right-fielder, etc. If I was to grade Cashman’s offseason, I would give it an ‘S’ – and that does not stand for “Success[ful]” or “Satisfactory.”
Raf wrote:
Cain has been on the roster since 2005, has pitched well in the postseason, and is under contract until 2017. Lincecum has been on the roster since 2007, has pitched well in the postseason, and is under contract until 2014. Bumgarner has been on the roster since 2009, has pitched well in the postseason, and is under contract until 2017. The team has strength and stability in its rotation and pitchers that have won in S.F. in the postseason; its positioned to compete in the postseason for years to come in the area where it is most critical: the rotation. Zito has at least pitched well in the postseason.
The Yankees have Sabathia signed until 2016.
LMJ229 wrote:
Well I guess he wasn’t “Munson-like:” “[Russell Martin] came in here and we thought he was Thurman Munson-like,” Cashman said.
Raf wrote:
Det.? Verlander is 29 yrs. old, has pitched in Det. since 2005, has a winning postseason record in Det., and expected to sign a long-term contract with Det. Scherzer is 28 yrs. old, has pitched in Det. since ’10, has a winning postseason record in Det., and expected to sign a long-term contract with Det. Fister is 28 yrs. old, has pitched in Det. since 11, has a 2.97 postseason E.R.A. in Det. and is under contract until ’14.
Det. has rotation strength capable of competing for a world championship for years to come, and stability in the area most important to a team’s postseason success: starting pitching.
N.Y.? Sabathia is 32 yrs. old, and under contract until 2016.
Raf wrote:
T.B.? Price is 27 yrs. old., has pitched in T.B. since 2008, has a 3.96 postseason E.R.A. in T.B., and is expected to sign a long-term contract in T.B. Shields is 30 yrs. old, has pitched in T.B. since ’06, had 31 wins and 3.23 E.R.A. in the last 2 seasons in T.B., and is under contract with a club option until ’14. Hellickson is 25 yrs. old, has pitched in T.B. since 2010, has a 3.06 E.R.A. in T.B., and is under contract until 2017.
T.B. has rotation strength capable of competing for a world championship for years to come, and stability the area most important to a team’s postseason success: starting pitching.
N.Y.? Sabathia is 32 yrs. old, and under contract until 2016.
Evan3457 wrote:
It would be surprising at the least if a G.M. can receive more in total compensation for 4 playoff appearances than a 2nd. world championship under his contract’s terms, or if any G.M. would prefer to have 4 playoff appearances to a 2nd. world championship on his resume, or a 2nd. ring.
McMillan wrote:
Lost the WS this year, lost the ALCS last year, and hadn’t made the playoffs since 2006. Your point?
McMillan wrote:
Made the playoffs for the first time in franchise history in 2008, when they lost the world series to the Phillies, who have as good a 1-2-3 as anyone; wonder what happened to them since they signed Cliff Lee? But I digress; TBR no playoffs in 2009 & 12, and first round exits in 2010 & 11.
So, um, yeah…
Raf wrote:
“And many teams have captured what makes for a successful playoff formula; Det. has not won – yet, but they are favorites to win in 2013 because they have such a formula in place: starting pitching, defense, and a postseason lineup with Martinez (.274) and Hunter (.305) added to Young, Cabrera, etc. that can hit in Oct., etc. And don’t be surprised if they’re the favorites again in 2014 and beyond. They’ll win with this front office in place – they are not going to forget how to build such a team or become incapable of doing so if they must rebuild in the future or otherwise.”
http://waswatching.com/2012/10/19/two-post-alcs-brian-cashman-quotes-that-should-scare-yankees-fans/
Raf wrote:
So I do not see a 38 yr.-old pitcher signed to be the team’s no. 2 starter for a 2nd straight year, or a 41 yr.-old pitcher signed to be the team’s no. 3 starter for a 2nd straight year, or a need for concern on what the free agent market might look like in 2014 so as to field a team with a starting rotation capable of competing for a world championship or a team that has not made a successful trade for a no. 1 or no. 2 starting pitcher in 15 yrs. – I see a team that has remained competitive because of strength and stability in its starting rotation. From where will the Yankees acquire a no. 2 starter in 2014? A no. 3 starter? Or is it sign Kuroda to another 1 yr. contract… Pettitte to another 1-yr. contract…
Kinda makes you wonder how the Yanks finished with a better record than both the Rays and the Tigers
LOL at you talking up the Tiggers defense; .678 defensive efficiency, only better than the Royals
Raf wrote:
I was about to write the same thing but you saved me the effort. At least we got a good chuckle out of that one though.
Raf wrote:
And what team was N.Y. unceremoniously swept by in Oct. in an historically poor performance? Det. And why? Superior starting pitching and a lineup that can hit in Oct. You can have the better regular season record in 2012 – Det. will take the A.L. Pennant and its odds as favorites to win a title in 2013 behind that rotation and that lineup even with an average or sub-par defense. I’m sure the Stalking Horse himself would have rather had the A.L. Pennant than the better regular season record.
MJ Recanati wrote:
It might be news to Herzog that there is no such thing as a formula for success in Oct. He put together a team that appeared in 3 straight A.L. championship series, and then went to St. Louis and won a world championship with a different team and the same “magic” formula.
“Three times in the last 30 years, an N.L. team was below league average in home runs and strikeout rate and went to the World Series. Those three teams were the St. Louis Cardinals of 1982, 1985 and 1987… How did they do it? And why haven’t other teams successfully copied the formula?
What was that last word? “Formula?” I thought there was no such thing as a formula for success in Oct.
Raf wrote:
“Making the playoffs is what counts.” I guess you were serious, because both Det. and N.Y. went to the playoffs and Det. won an A.L. Pennant – but you’re more concerned with N.Y.’s better regular season record. Even Brian Cashman can have supporters…
McMillan wrote:
You think 3/30 (0.1%) a successful formula? There’s your answer as to why other teams haven’t successfully copied that formula, because the “formula” is crap
BTW, the Cardinals were 1-3 in World Series (.333%), and 3-3 (100%) in the NLCS. So, what happened in the World Series that their “formula” didn’t work, and why didn’t the “formula” work in the 27 other years that they didn’t make the playoffs?
McMillan wrote:
Ah, no
http://www.thespread.com/mlb-articles/040412-updated-2012-world-series-odds-to-win-phillies-favored#.UL4jFuTBG8A
Yanks & Phils were odds on favorites to win in 2012, despite the Rangers and Cardinals being pennant winners with the Cardinals being World Champs.
Raf wrote:
No, but I think that 6 pennants and 2 world championships with 2 teams in different leagues in 15 years is fairly successful. It is an example of 1 approach, an approach other organizations have tried to emulate, including the Yankees in 1982. And I am not in need of an “answer” as to why some organizations have not had such success – I alluded to one. The “Big Hairy Monster Team That Mashes Apr. – Sep. Pitching” approach, on the other hand, will continue to fail in 2013, irrespective of whether or not the team makes it to the “crapshoots.”
Raf wrote:
Det. will take its A.L. pennant. And its G.M. will take any bonus or compensation that he will have earned for having won it.
Raf wrote:
The World Series is a “crapshoot,” of course.
McMillan wrote:
An approach that worked so well, that they abandoned it mid season.
About those Royals, from 1976-85 (10 years), we’re talking 4 times they didn’t make it past the LCS series, an LDS appearance, twice they made it to the World Series (1-1), and 3 times they didn’t qualify for the playoffs.
So, their vaunted approach worked fine during the regular season, but once they were able to win it all. 1/10, again 0.1%. So what happened during the postseason that the approach that they used during the regular season failed so much? And what were the approaches to the other contending teams, teams such as the White Sox (1983), Angels (1979, 1982), that made the playoffs when the Royals didn’t? What were the approaches of teams like the Yanks (1976-78), Phillies (1980) & Tigers (1984) teams that beat the Royals in the playoffs?
Now keep in mind that the Royals haven’t been competitive outside a handful of seasons since winning it all in 1985? So what happened? They’ve drafted, they’ve signed FA’s, they’ve made trades. So why have they stunk more often than not? In a weak division (since 1994) to boot?
McMillan wrote:
Actually, that’s right, as the 1960 Pirates can tell you.
Raf wrote:
Did Mickey Rivers come up with these numbers?
McMillan wrote:
Are you Mickey Rivers? I quoted your post
McMillan wrote:
Three times in the last 30 years, 3 for 30, 3/30, 0.1%… My math could be off
Evan3457 wrote:
Still working on the other posts?
Raf wrote:
The math itself is on. St. Louis has not followed the same approach throughout the period as the excerpt of the article included seems to suggest. There are several reasons for this, one of which I referred to; the others you should be familiar with. In a 16 yr. period with 2 organizations and in different leagues, Herzog appeared in 6 league championship series, and won 3 pennants and 1 World Series title. And the organizations did not have payrolls comparable to those in markets such as N.Y. There is no “right” “formula,” but there has not been a “poor-hitting team that lit up the playoffs with its bats” and won a world championship either.
Raf wrote:
An approach that was ill-advised for a team that played 81 games each season in Yankees Stadium, and had a front office incapable of implementing it. I’m not fond of the term “formula.” It has been offered by other individuals and I responded with its use. St. Louis was not following a “formula” as much as an approach to building a team within the constraints of its budget and in consideration of its home ballpark. It could manufacture runs in the postseason. The Yankees were not going to win a world championship (w.c.) with the lineup it had in 2012; and it will not win a w.c. in 2013 with the roster it has as of Dec., 2012.
Raf wrote:
I’m not talking about the years 1976-85; I am talking about the years under Herzog. He was the team’s manager from 1975-79. The franchise became dominant in the A.L. West when there were only 2 divisions, losing to 3 N.Y. teams – 1 of which lost to the Big Red Machine and 2 of which became world champions. Herzog went to St. Louis in ’80, and brought his “approach” to the Cardinals. The team won 3 pennants and 1 world championship (possibly 2 world championships if Denkinger is not umpiring at first base in Game 6 in 1985) from ’82 – ’87.
Raf wrote:
I thought it was only the regular season that “counts?”
Raf wrote:
Rather than focusing on the “approaches,” “blueprints,” “formulas,” etc. of teams such as Kansas City and St. Louis, why not focus on what teams such as these and other contending teams had that N.Y. has not had or does not have: strength and stability in the rotation, a lineup that can produce and manufacture runs in Oct., etc. Because there is no such thing as “formulas?” First, there is. Second, a team can not win a world championship without: 1. a rotation capable of competing against the strongest rotations in baseball in Oct.; or 2. a lineup that can produce or manufacture runs in Oct.
Raf wrote:
As I stated earlier, I was talking about the years under Herzog, and I have referred to reasons K.C. and St. Louis have gone in different directions.
@ Raf:
Holy shit, these McMillan conversations make my head hurt. I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more.
Raf wrote:
Thank Rivers for the hard work on the simple arithmetic. Mick The Quick might need some assistance with the following: For the period (4 divisions in M.L.B.), how many teams had a better record of success? And how did the payrolls of K.C. and St. Louis compare to those teams? Not necessary that he provide us with the long division by 26 in either case.
Raf wrote:
“I’m still using the Gene Michael playbook” – Cashman. There’s no such thing as a “formula,” but there is such a thing as a “playbook?” Michael put together teams that could hit in October.
“Pitching, defense, and 3-run homers;” of course, it’s understood by most to mean “Pitching that can win in Oct., defense that can win in Oct., and an offense that can hit 3-run homers in Oct.” – not “Pitching, defense, 3-run homers, and prayer in Oct.” It was an “approach,” “blueprint,” “formula,” “philosophy,” or “playbook” Baltimore had more than a fair amount of success with.
Ask Stick. Or Mick.
MJ Recanati wrote:
So as to preclude any appearance of arguing against myself, I’ll use your argument:
“Because there’s no magic formula to being a good playoff team.” True. “We’ve seen poor-hitting teams light up the playoffs with their bats.” False. “We’ve seen average pitchers become dominant for a few weeks in October.” Average pitchers, not average staffs. “For a few weeks” can translate to 3 starts. “We’ve seen teams that could normally field suddenly become a bunch of soccer players out there, kicking the ball around.” True. “And, with the Yankees, we’ve seen league-leading offensive players suddenly lose their batting stroke.” False. Championship-calibre staffs took away their regular season league-leading batting strokes in 2010-12; it was no more “sudden” then it would have been if the team resigned Martin and Swisher and it again hit .188 with a case of “Yankees flu” in the 2013 postseason.
“The long and the short of it is this: if it were so easy to capture exactly what makes for a successful playoff formula — especially in this age where you have to win 11 or 12 games to win the title instead of just four or eight as it was before the divisional series and the wild-card game were introduced — then teams would’ve done so.” False; the challenge is implementing such a “formula,” not capturing one; and a $200 mil. payroll makes such an implementation less of a challenge. And by referencing the expanded playoff format it is you that is arguing against yourself. “Clearly, however, since all sorts of different teams have won, this is not the case.” All sorts of different teams with offensive players that could manufacture runs or not “lose their batting strokes” in Oct. against Championship-calibre staffs.
Evan3457 wrote:
If its a “crapshoot,” then why go back 52 years to 1960? It would more likely be the 1960 Yankees that would tell me that, I would think, or those on the losing side of a ledger.
McMillan wrote:
Didn’t see the point of responding to/have anything relevant to say about the other posts.
McMillan wrote:
Actually, the 2010 Giants would qualify for that category.
McMillan wrote:
Actually, pitching, defense and 3-run homers is attributed to Earl Weaver, who was remarkably successful over many regular seasons…and whose teams routinely were upset/disappointed in the post-season.
Only title he ever won with pitching, defense and 3-run homers was 1970.
He got upset by the Mets in the ’69 Series, and by the Pirates in ’71 and ’79, topped by the A’s from 1972-1974, and beaten for the divsion title in close races in 1975, 1977, 1980, 1981, and 1982.
McMillan wrote:
<blockquote
““We’ve seen poor-hitting teams light up the playoffs with their bats.” False.
Actually, true. See the Giants in 2010, and the Mets vs. the Braves in the NLCS of 1969.
No, average staffs. Even below average staffs. See the 2006 Cards.
No, true.
Robbie Cano would fairly qualify as a league-leading offensive player. (3rd in Offensive war, hits, runs, 2nd in total bases, 5th in OPS+.)
No one would describe either Martin or Swisher as a league-leading hitter. And the as two of the teams beat the Yankees in the ALCS, the definition of “championship-caliber” pitching staff would appear to be circular. That is, a championship caliber pitching staff is a pitching staff that wins a championship series, because neither staff won the World Series. (Although they did beat one other AL team besides the Yankees in the post-season.)
“The long and the short of it is this: if it were so easy to capture exactly what makes for a successful playoff formula — especially in this age where you have to win 11 or 12 games to win the title instead of just four or eight as it was before the divisional series and the wild-card game were introduced — then teams would’ve done so.” False; the challenge is implementing such a “formula,” not capturing one; and a $200 mil. payroll makes such an implementation less of a challenge. . You haven’t shown this.
I think you’ll find that’s true of many, if not most, of the teams that lose in playoff series, not just the Yankees.
Evan3457 wrote:
Debateable. At Best.
Evan3457 wrote:
How many franchises were as successful or more successful than the Orioles in this timeframe, and how did the payrolls of those franchises compare to Baltimore’s? As you said, “remarkable success.” What is “remarkable” about playoff appearances behind $200 mil. payrolls?
Evan3457 wrote:
1969?
MJ Recanati wrote:
Yeah, tell me about it. Arguing against himself, moving goalposts, circular logic. All coupled with an unhealthy obsession with Cashman’s sex life as well as an ultra-narrow fixation on the payroll that prevents him from seeing the forest for the trees. Like I said before, he’s trying to fit the facts to his pre-arrived conclusions, unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. lol
Evan3457 wrote:
False.
Evan3457 wrote:
False. I was referring to the lineup or offensive players collectively or as a whole. Of course a league-leading offensive player can have a poor postseason.
Evan3457 wrote:
True. And I certainly have not.
Evan3457 wrote:
False. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calibre.
Evan3457 wrote:
False.
Raf wrote:
According to Mary Cashman, KIm Brennan, Louis Neathway, and others, it would appear that Cashman is one with an unhealthy obsession with sex.
McMillan wrote:
Which is their business, not yours
Raf wrote:
And spousal abuse is not the business of the B.B.W.A.A. in H.O.F. voting.
McMillan wrote:
Wrong; true. The Cards pitching staff that year was 9th in the NL in ERA. Its ERA+ was 98. Among just the starters on staff, they were 12th in the NL in ERA. If that’s not below average, there isn’t any such thing.
Oh, you mean like the 1963 Yankees, 2nd in the AL in runs scored, HR, OPS, and held to a .171 team BAVG, and 4 runs in a 4-game sweep loss to the Dodgers? Or the 1990 A’s, who were 3rd in the AL in runs and HR despite playing in the best pitcher’s park in the league, but held to 8 runs and a .207 BAVG in a 4-game sweep of the A’s? (Oh boy, they got 6 more singles than the Yankees did when the Yanks were swept by the Tigers this year. Yippee!!)
True, but they’re the two you named.
The definition of caliber cited is irrelevant. It’s a general definition of caliber, and not specific to “championship caliber”. What is “championship caliber”? Whatever is sufficient to win a championship? That’s the definition you’re using, whether you care to admit it or not.
And I say it’s true, and it’s also obvious if you look at the batting records of teams that lose playoff series. They may not hit .157 as a team, but many of them are way, way below their season averages.
This includes teams that lose on their way to learning how to win, and it includes “juggernauts” in the middle of multi-year post-season runs, and it includes “one-hit wonders” and it includes teams on the way down from dynasties, having won multiple times, and therefore presumably have proven themselves against “championship caliber” pitching over and over again.
For example, the 2001 Yankees, having won 11 consecutive playoff series, some of which must have been contested against “championship caliber” pitching, hit a grand total of .183 in the 7-game series against the Diamondbacks, and scored a grand total of 14 runs in the 7 games, two of which were started by noted Hall of Famers Brian Anderson and Miguel Batista, neither of which the three-time defending champions hit particularly hard.
Evan3457 wrote:
Which definition should I have cited?
McMillan wrote:
Whatever definition you happen to mean when you say “championship caliber”.
I’m not deliberately trying to be obtuse here, but what, exactly, do you mean by that phrase?
McMillan wrote:
You’re like Ralph Wiggum with your non sequiturs… lol
Evan3457 wrote:
I don’t believe that you read what was written very carefully; this is not inconsistent with what was written. And the 1963 Yankees lost to Koufax twice.
Evan3457 wrote:
This is not inconsistent with what was written, or anything that I have written in previous posts.
Evan3457 wrote:
“Oh boy?” “Yippee?”
Evan3457 wrote:
I don’t believe that you read what was written very carefully; I was speaking of a hypothetical re-signing of Martin and Swisher. Other than that, I have not referred to Swisher specifically other than to point out that, statistically, he is the worst postseason hitter in the teams history, and that the best trade that The Stalking Horse of Nashville, 2012 can claim as a G.M. is Swisher.
Evan3457 wrote:
What definition should have been cited? Replace the general definition of caliber within “championship-caliber” and that is what “championship caliber” is or the definition that I am using. Why would I not care to “admit” it?
Evan3457 wrote:
O.K. Say its true.
Evan3457 wrote:
“Teams that lose on their way to learning how to win?”
Evan3457 wrote:
I don’t believe that you read what was written very carefully.
Evan3457 wrote:
This is not inconsistent with what was written, or anything that I have written in previous posts. And I can not re-write everything again here, or take the time to include excerpts from these previous posts.
Evan3457 wrote:
These are not Hale of Fame-calibre pitchers.
Raf wrote:
LOL.