• Everybody Wants Russell Martin?

    Posted by on November 28th, 2012 · Comments (102)

    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 BA OBP SLG
    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
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 11/28/2012.

    .

    Comments on Everybody Wants Russell Martin?

    1. Evan3457
      December 2nd, 2012 | 11:15 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      McMillan wrote:
      Raf wrote:
      But playing along, the Jints missed the playoffs 3 times in that timeframe you referenced, with 2nd, 3rd & 4th place finishes.
      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.
      Debateable. At best.
      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.

      Debateable. At best.

    2. Raf
      December 2nd, 2012 | 1:03 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Actually, you neglected to include Bumgarner instead of Zito.

      Well, that would refute his 1-2-3 theory :p

    3. McMillan
      December 2nd, 2012 | 4:27 pm

      Corey wrote:

      You have to wait until at least the end of the offseason to grade Cashman’s offseason.

      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.”

    4. McMillan
      December 2nd, 2012 | 4:53 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Well, that would refute his 1-2-3 theory :p

      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.

    5. McMillan
      December 3rd, 2012 | 4:23 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Well I guess now we will find out what Cashman’s back-up plan is.

      Well I guess he wasn’t “Munson-like:” “[Russell Martin] came in here and we thought he was Thurman Munson-like,” Cashman said.

    6. McMillan
      December 3rd, 2012 | 4:35 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Well, that would refute his 1-2-3 theory :p

      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.

    7. McMillan
      December 3rd, 2012 | 4:39 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Well, that would refute his 1-2-3 theory :p

      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.

    8. McMillan
      December 3rd, 2012 | 4:56 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Debateable. At best.

      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.

    9. Raf
      December 3rd, 2012 | 7:01 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Det.?

      Lost the WS this year, lost the ALCS last year, and hadn’t made the playoffs since 2006. Your point?

      McMillan wrote:

      T.B.?

      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… 😛

    10. McMillan
      December 3rd, 2012 | 8:30 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Lost the WS this year, lost the ALCS last year, and hadn’t made the playoffs since 2006. Your point?

      “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/

    11. McMillan
      December 3rd, 2012 | 8:42 pm

      Raf 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…

      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…

    12. Raf
      December 3rd, 2012 | 9:34 pm

      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 😀

    13. MJ Recanati
      December 4th, 2012 | 10:21 am

      Raf wrote:

      LOL at you talking up the Tiggers defense; .678 defensive efficiency, only better than the Royals

      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. 😀

    14. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 11:17 am

      Raf wrote:

      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

      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.

    15. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 11:25 am

      MJ Recanati 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.

      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.

    16. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 11:37 am

      Raf wrote:

      Kinda makes you wonder how the Yanks finished with a better record than both the Rays and the Tigers

      “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…

    17. Raf
      December 4th, 2012 | 12:24 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      “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.

      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:

      Det. will take the A.L. Pennant and its odds as favorites to win a title in 2013

      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. 🙂

    18. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:04 pm

      Raf wrote:

      There’s your answer as to why other teams haven’t successfully copied that formula

      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.”

    19. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:11 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Yanks & Phils were odds on favorites to win in 2012, despite the Rangers and Cardinals being pennant winners with the Cardinals being World Champs.

      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.

    20. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:13 pm

      Raf wrote:

      So, what happened in the World Series that their “formula” didn’t work

      The World Series is a “crapshoot,” of course.

    21. Raf
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:25 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      an approach other organizations have tried to emulate, including the Yankees in 1982

      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?

    22. Evan3457
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:26 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      So, what happened in the World Series that their “formula” didn’t work
      The World Series is a “crapshoot,” of course.

      Actually, that’s right, as the 1960 Pirates can tell you.

    23. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:26 pm

      Raf wrote:

      You think 3/30 (0.1%) a successful formula?

      Did Mickey Rivers come up with these numbers?

    24. Raf
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:34 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      You think 3/30 (0.1%) a successful formula?
      Did Mickey Rivers come up with these numbers?

      Are you Mickey Rivers? I quoted your post 😛

      McMillan wrote:

      “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.

      Three times in the last 30 years, 3 for 30, 3/30, 0.1%… My math could be off 😀

    25. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 8:34 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Actually, that’s right, as the 1960 Pirates can tell you.

      Still working on the other posts?

    26. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 9:41 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Three times in the last 30 years, 3 for 30, 3/30, 0.1%… My math could be off

      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.

    27. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 10:25 pm

      Raf wrote:

      An approach that worked so well, that they abandoned it mid season.

      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.

    28. McMillan
      December 4th, 2012 | 11:15 pm

      Raf wrote:

      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.

      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:

      So, their vaunted approach worked fine during the regular season, but once they were able to win it all.

      I thought it was only the regular season that “counts?”

      Raf wrote:

      And what were the approaches to the other contending teams?

      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:

      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?

      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.

    29. MJ Recanati
      December 5th, 2012 | 10:05 am

      @ Raf:
      Holy shit, these McMillan conversations make my head hurt. I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more.

    30. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 12:53 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Three times in the last 30 years, 3 for 30, 3/30, 0.1%… My math could be off

      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.

    31. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 1:10 pm

      Raf wrote:

      And what were the approaches to the other contending teams

      “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.

    32. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 2:54 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ Raf:
      Holy shit, these McMillan conversations make my head hurt. I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more.

      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.

    33. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 3:59 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      Raf wrote:
      So, what happened in the World Series that their “formula” didn’t work
      The World Series is a “crapshoot,” of course.
      Actually, that’s right, as the 1960 Pirates can tell you.

      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.

    34. Evan3457
      December 5th, 2012 | 4:12 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Actually, that’s right, as the 1960 Pirates can tell you.
      Still working on the other posts?

      Didn’t see the point of responding to/have anything relevant to say about the other posts.

    35. Evan3457
      December 5th, 2012 | 4:12 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      Three times in the last 30 years, 3 for 30, 3/30, 0.1%… My math could be off
      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.

      Actually, the 2010 Giants would qualify for that category.

    36. Evan3457
      December 5th, 2012 | 4:17 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      And what were the approaches to the other contending teams
      “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.

      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.

    37. Evan3457
      December 5th, 2012 | 4:31 pm

      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.

      “We’ve seen average pitchers become dominant for a few weeks in October.” Average pitchers, not average staffs.

      No, average staffs. Even below average staffs. See the 2006 Cards.

      “And, with the Yankees, we’ve seen league-leading offensive players suddenly lose their batting stroke.” False.

      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+.)

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

    38. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 4:53 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Actually, the 2010 Giants would qualify for that category.

      Debateable. At Best.

    39. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 5:06 pm

      Evan3457 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.

      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?

    40. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 5:13 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Actually, true. See the Giants in 2010, and the Mets vs. the Braves in the NLCS of 1969.

      1969?

    41. Raf
      December 5th, 2012 | 7:04 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ Raf:
      Holy shit, these McMillan conversations make my head hurt. I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more.

      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 😛

    42. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 7:19 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, average staffs. Even below average staffs. See the 2006 Cards

      False.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      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+.)

      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:

      No one would describe either Martin or Swisher as a league-leading hitter.

      True. And I certainly have not.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      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.

      False. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calibre.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      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.

      False.

    43. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 7:38 pm

      Raf wrote:

      All coupled with an unhealthy obsession with Cashman’s sex life

      According to Mary Cashman, KIm Brennan, Louis Neathway, and others, it would appear that Cashman is one with an unhealthy obsession with sex.

    44. Raf
      December 5th, 2012 | 7:45 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      All coupled with an unhealthy obsession with Cashman’s sex life
      According to Mary Cashman, KIm Brennan, Louis Neathway, and others, it would appear that Cashman is one with an unhealthy obsession with sex.

      Which is their business, not yours 😉

    45. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 8:44 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Which is their business, not yours

      And spousal abuse is not the business of the B.B.W.A.A. in H.O.F. voting.

    46. Evan3457
      December 5th, 2012 | 8:51 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      No, average staffs. Even below average staffs. See the 2006 Cards
      False.

      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.

      Robbie Cano would fairly qualify as a league-leading offensive player. (3rd in Offensive war, hits, runs, 2nd in total bases, 5th in OPS+.)

      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.

      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!!)

      Evan3457 wrote:
      No one would describe either Martin or Swisher as a league-leading hitter.

      True. And I certainly have not.

      True, but they’re the two you named.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      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.

      False. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calibre.

      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.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      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.

      False.

      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.

    47. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 8:57 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The definition of caliber cited is irrelevant.

      Which definition should I have cited?

    48. Evan3457
      December 5th, 2012 | 9:21 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The definition of caliber cited is irrelevant.
      Which definition should I have cited?

      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?

    49. Raf
      December 5th, 2012 | 9:26 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      Which is their business, not yours
      And spousal abuse is not the business of the B.B.W.A.A. in H.O.F. voting.

      You’re like Ralph Wiggum with your non sequiturs… lol

    50. McMillan
      December 5th, 2012 | 9:49 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      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?

      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:

      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?

      This is not inconsistent with what was written, or anything that I have written in previous posts.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh boy, they got 6 more singles than the Yankees did when the Yanks were swept by the Tigers this year. Yippee!!

      “Oh boy?” “Yippee?”
      Evan3457 wrote:

      True, but they’re the two you named.

      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:

      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.

      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:

      And I say it’s true

      O.K. Say its true.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      This includes teams that lose on their way to learning how to win

      “Teams that lose on their way to learning how to win?”
      Evan3457 wrote:

      and it’s also obvious if you look at the batting records of teams that lose playoff series

      I don’t believe that you read what was written very carefully.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      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

      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:

      Hall of Famers Brian Anderson and Miguel Batista

      These are not Hale of Fame-calibre pitchers.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.