• Yankees: Thank You, Toronto

    Posted by on May 6th, 2013 · Comments (10)

    The New York Yankees are 18-12 to start the 2013 season.

    They are 6-1 when playing the Toronto Blue Jays and 12-11 when playing everyone else.

    Toronto is 11-21, so far this year, and sit in last place in the A.L. East.

    Safe to say the Yankees record looks good because of all those games against the struggling Blue Jays?

    Comments on Yankees: Thank You, Toronto

    1. MJ Recanati
      May 6th, 2013 | 11:01 am

      I always LOL when I read these horribly illogical posts.

      In other news, the Red Sox are tied for the best record in baseball (20-11, .645 WP%). Interestingly, they’re 8-2 against the Astros and Blue Jays and 12-9 against everyone else. Or, sliced another way, the Red Sox 11-2 against teams with a sub-.500 record which means they’re 9-9 against everyone else.

    2. May 6th, 2013 | 11:10 am

      @ MJ Recanati:
      Deflection. I am asking a question regarding the overall record of the Yankees this season being inflated, favorably, because they got to beat up on the Blue Jays. And, you bring up the Red Sox. (Does that qualify as moving goal posts?)

      I don’t care if the Red Sox record is misleading. I’m a Yankees fan and only care about the Yankees. That’s why I want to know if other Yankees fans think this team is more like a .500 team, in terms of ability, than what their record so far suggests…

    3. MJ Recanati
      May 6th, 2013 | 11:24 am

      @ Steve L.:
      Not deflection at all. Merely using your absurd logic on another team. I picked the Red Sox because they’re leading in the division and have the best record in baseball. I could’ve easily picked the Cardinals (with whom the Red Sox are tied).

      I don’t see how I moved goalposts; I used your exact logical argument.

      You want to talk about deflection? “I don’t care if the _____ record is misleading. I’m a Yankees fan and only care about the Yankees.” That’s deflection. When your argument is thrown back in your face, you deflect it by saying you don’t care how flawed your argument is, you only care about shoehorning flawed logic — annually formed BEFORE GAMES ARE EVEN PLAYED — to fit your hypothesis.

      *****
      You want an answer to your ridiculous question? Here you go:

      The Yankees have beaten up on bad teams and played .500 against everyone else. That’s how every playoff contender does it, and that’s how it’s been for as long as you’ve been writing these posts. You refuse to acknowledge this very basic fact. The Yankees are doing what they’re supposed to do. They’re not as good as some teams but better than others. It’s only five weeks into the season so much is still unknown.

    4. Ricketson
      May 6th, 2013 | 11:53 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      That’s why I want to know if other Yankees fans think this team is more like a .500 team, in terms of ability, than what their record so far suggests…

      Not the way the starting pitching is performing…

    5. Garcia
      May 6th, 2013 | 12:06 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      The Yankees have beaten up on bad teams and played .500 against everyone else. That’s how every playoff contender does it, and that’s how it’s been for as long as you’ve been writing these posts. You refuse to acknowledge this very basic fact.

      I bolded to emphasize the point a bit more. These posts are so eff’ing stupid, there is absolutely nothing to take away from these posts at all.

      I understand looking at W/L records at home vs. away, I understand comparing staff ERA home vs. away, but to diminish wins based on an opponents W/L record seems so dumb to me. Which is what your point is, should we be concerned that the Yankees are beating up on the teams they are supposed to beat up on. Seriously, what’s your point? Are you expecting it to be the same?

      It’s like you are always shocked that a team has a poorer record against the really good teams.

      Or maybe you are not even shocked or even slightly surprised by the results that a team beat up on lesser competition, but this helps build your Cashman bashing narrative. And that’s really what I think these posts are all about. I hate defending Cashman, I would love to see him gone, but it’s that your arguments (sometimes) against Cashman make zero sense to me.

    6. McMillan
      May 6th, 2013 | 3:30 pm

      Garcia wrote:

      I bolded to emphasize the point a bit more. These posts are so eff’ing stupid, there is absolutely nothing to take away from these posts at all.

      Much has been made of the success of the team so far in terms of wins and losses, but it would be as incorrect to not point out that a full one-third of those wins have come against one of the worst teams in baseball as it would be to not point out that a full one-third of a team’s wins had come against one of the best teams in baseball at this stage.
      It’s no more effing stupid than the following:
      “Cashman has won four rings and picked a club good enough to go to the playoffs every season except for 2008.” What has happened in the last twelve years, or how did Cashman go from “winning” a “ring” every year for three years, to winning a ring every twelve years?

    7. Bruce Markusen
      May 6th, 2013 | 11:20 pm

      Given that I consider the Jays the favorites to win the AL East (despite their bad start), the Yankees’ record against them is impressive. I still regard the Jays as the best team, on paper, in the division. So why would I hold the Yankees’ 6-1 record vs. Toronto against them?

      Bottom line is this: the Yankees are 18-12, despite having six regular players and three pitchers on the DL. Under the circumstances, that record is STUNNING. No one should be complaining.

    8. Garcia
      May 7th, 2013 | 8:14 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Garcia wrote:

      I bolded to emphasize the point a bit more. These posts are so eff’ing stupid, there is absolutely nothing to take away from these posts at all.

      Much has been made of the success of the team so far in terms of wins and losses, but it would be as incorrect to not point out that a full one-third of those wins have come against one of the worst teams in baseball as it would be to not point out that a full one-third of a team’s wins had come against one of the best teams in baseball at this stage.
      It’s no more effing stupid than the following:
      “Cashman has won four rings and picked a club good enough to go to the playoffs every season except for 2008.” What has happened in the last twelve years, or how did Cashman go from “winning” a “ring” every year for three years, to winning a ring every twelve years?

      No idea what point you’re trying to make, but thanks for sharing.

    9. Raf
      May 7th, 2013 | 8:54 am

      @ Bruce Markusen:

      Welcome!

    10. Bruce Markusen
      May 7th, 2013 | 3:30 pm

      Thanks, Raf.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.