• May 29, 2013 – Time To Wake-Up & Realize Yanks W-L Record Is An Illusion

    Posted by on May 29th, 2013 · Comments (69)

    As of this morning, the New York Yankees are 30-21 in 2013. That’s a winning percentage of .588 (over those 51 games).

    That overall mark is good for second place in the A.L. East (one game back of Boston) and the third best winning percentage in the American League.

    When a Yankees fan sees this, they go “Yeaaaaaa!”

    However, look inside the numbers. To date, the Yankees have played the Toronto Blue Jays nine times and the Kansas City Royals three times. Both of those teams have not done well this season, so far. Check out these numbers:

    The Blue Jays are 22-30 and in last place in the A.L. East. They have a “winning” percentage of .423 this season. The Royals are 21-28 and in last place in the A.L. Central. They have a “winning” percentage of .429 this season.

    Basically, Toronto and Kansas City are the among the worst teams in the league this season (along with the Astros, Twins and Mariners). Got it?

    O.K., the Yankees, this season to date, are 11-1 when playing the Blue Jays and Royals.

    Do the math from there. This means the Yankees are 19-20 this season when they don’t have the benefit of beating up on the crappy Jays and Royals. And, that’s not good.

    Sure, there have been injuries. No A-Rod, Jeter, Teixeira yet this season. And, Granderson’s just about been out the whole year. Also, Youkilis, Pettitte, Nunez, Chamberlain, Nova and Cervelli got hurt. But, that’s just an excuse.

    Vernon Wells got off to a good start this season (before hitting the skids recently). In addition, Travis Hafner, Robinson Cano, Brett Gardner and Lyle Overbay have done as well as reasonable expected – if not better. Further, on the pitching side, could the Yankees bullpen be any better than shown this year? And, in the rotation, Hiroki Kuroda has been lights-out, CC Sabathia has been not terrible and David Phelps has been solid. Therefore, it’s not like the Yankees are going out there with a Miami Marlins or Houston Astros type roster. There’s no excuse for being a game under five-hundred when not facing the crap teams in the league…other than the fact that they are not playing well.

    In summary, that’s it. The New York Yankees are not playing well this season, even if their won-loss record is 30-21. And, it’s time to wake-up and realize that in Yankeeland.

    Comments on May 29, 2013 – Time To Wake-Up & Realize Yanks W-L Record Is An Illusion

    1. G.I. Joey
      May 29th, 2013 | 8:28 am

      Classic WW post.

    2. Garcia
      May 29th, 2013 | 9:05 am

      G.I. Joey wrote:

      Classic WW post.

      Exactly! This provides has absolutely no value at all and doesn’t really bring anything to the table.

      When you look past the W-L record, you see a team that was decimated by injuries AND the fact that they have a W-L that is 3rd best in the A.L. is something to be thankful for. Despite last night’s horrific loss. I don’t think it can be put any more succinctly. If you want to harbor some weird resentment for beating up on a team that was supposed to be competing for A.L. East, then that is on you my friend. But the bottom line is this: this post is beyond illogical.

      The expectations a great number of Yankee fans had for this team in spring training was not as a 95 win team, which is roughly what .588 winning % represents. In the words of Bill Parcells: you are what your record says you are.

    3. Garcia
      May 29th, 2013 | 9:05 am

      Garcia wrote:

      This provides has absolutely no value at all and doesn’t really bring anything to the table.

      Sorry. Should read: This post …

    4. MJ Recanati
      May 29th, 2013 | 9:08 am

      G.I. Joey wrote:

      Classic WW post.

      Absolutely. Also known as “fun(ny stuff) with numbers.”

    5. May 29th, 2013 | 9:25 am

      @ G.I. Joey:
      @ MJ Recanati:
      @ Garcia:

      The numbers are always relative. If you have two batters hitting .300 and one of them has a line-drive % of 2% and the other has a line-drive % of 80%, then one of them is a really good hitter and the other is just lucky…even ‘tho “the numbers” both say that they are .300 hitters.

      It works the same way with W-L records. That’s why things like “strength of schedule” exist. You need to look inside the numbers, sometimes. And, that’s what I am suggesting here.

    6. trashbag
      May 29th, 2013 | 9:54 am

      But the Jays are 21-22 against good teams (everyone but the Yankees, natch), which is basically .500, so the Jays are actually a solid .500 team against quality opponents, so the Yankees are actually good again but then the Jays can’t be good so then the Yankees can’t be good but then the Jays are good which means the Yankees are good which means the Jays are not good which means the Yankees are not good which which means the Jays are good which means the Yankees are good which means steve is a jackass.

    7. MJ Recanati
      May 29th, 2013 | 10:01 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      It works the same way with W-L records. That’s why things like “strength of schedule” exist. You need to look inside the numbers, sometimes. And, that’s what I am suggesting here.

      If that’s what you were suggesting, that would be one thing. However, in each previous instance that you’ve written one of these posts, other teams’ records have been broken down in the same way in order to show you that nearly every team comes to their record in similar fashion.

      The Yankees are playing .500 against the league and dominating one particular opponent (Toronto). Since all those wins count the same, the manner in which the Yankees arrive at their record isn’t particularly meaningful. The Boston Red Sox are 6-1 against Cleveland. Just a few weeks ago you were discouting Yankee wins against the Indians. Does that mean that we should asterisk Boston’s record since they beat up a team you were disparaging a few weeks ago? Or, does the fact that Boston is only 10-9 against the Twins, Royals, and Blue Jays mean that Boston sucks because they’re only a .500 team against the dregs of the American League?

      You either have to accept that your “methodology” can be used for all teams or you have to stop using your flawed logic entirely.

    8. May 29th, 2013 | 11:16 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      You either have to accept that your “methodology” can be used for all teams

      Sure. It can be used for any team. But, I don’t care about the other teams. I’m a Yankees fan and I only care about how they are playing and whether or not their record is smoke and mirrors.

    9. May 29th, 2013 | 11:18 am

      trashbag wrote:

      which means steve is a jackass

      Wow, tough guy. Welcome to the blog.

    10. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2013 | 11:35 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      Sure. It can be used for any team. But, I don’t care about the other teams. I’m a Yankees fan and I only care about how they are playing and whether or not their record is smoke and mirrors.

      Context matters.

      If you can do the same thing to the records of other teams that you consider are “good” when the Yanks are “not good”, then that argues that this line of argument is invalid when trying to distinguish good teams from not-good teams. If the same can be done for other teams, including fairly obvious contending teams, then their record would also be “smoke and mirrors” and they wouldn’t be “good” teams, either. But you and I both know they ARE good teams. So, in order to be fair, the same standard must apply to the Yankees.

      You’ve used this argument several years in a row, and not once has it resulted in the Yankees failing to win 90 games or failing to make the playoffs.

      Again: if the Yanks get their regulars back, in reasonably good shape, for most of the rest of the season, then the team’s offense becomes above average, just like their pitching, and they would then be, again, a serious contender for the division title/other playoff spots.

    11. May 29th, 2013 | 11:50 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      You’ve used this argument several years in a row, and not once has it resulted in the Yankees failing to win 90 games or failing to make the playoffs.

      Every year is different. The league and other teams are different. Maybe the Yankees were able to get fat on weak teams in the past and make the post-season. But, we know how that all worked out in October.

    12. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2013 | 11:50 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      Sure, there have been injuries. No A-Rod, Jeter, Teixeira yet this season. And, Granderson’s just about been out the whole year. Also, Youkilis, Pettitte, Nunez, Chamberlain, Nova and Cervelli got hurt. But, that’s just an excuse.

      See, this here drive me batty.

      You always hear players and managers say, “Injuries are no excuse.”

      And that’s exactly what the participants should be saying, because if they start saying “Well, we’re so banged up now, we’re missing so many key guys that we don’t really have a chance to win anything”, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; a team that says that, even if just to themselves, is usually about to collapse.

      The problem begins when the media parrots that nonsense, which they have to do, because they can’t confront the managers and players directly on the idea. This is the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”, in that, for reasons of professional self-preservation, the media can’t challenge this nonsense, so they kowtow to the authority figures. Analysts who were players or coaches/managers are also there to enforce the dogma.

      But this is nonsense on stilts, at least it is if you’re a fan.

      Of course, injuries are a valid excuse for a team’s failures. The Yankees are so injury-ridden right now there are at least 5 players in the everyday lineup who wouldn’t be there if the regulars were healthy. Many of these hitters are no better than replacement-level, a few are below replacement-level.

      If injuries are no excuse; if it doesn’t matter who’s in the lineup, why does Derek Jeter make $16 million a year, while Jayson Nix plays for relative peanuts? Of course it matters if Jeter is out till August.

      What if CC, Kuroda, Pettitte and Hughes all blew out their arms at the same time, and the Yanks had to go with a rotation of Phelps, Warren, Nuno, Nova, and Wang? Would injuries STILL not be an excuse when this rotation didn’t pitch as well as the original rotation, and the Yanks lost more games because of that?

      How absurd.

      It’s OK with me if the players, coaches and managers say it. It’s OK with me if they even believe in it. It’s even OK with me if media people say it to preserve their livelihoods and their sanity. But there’s no reason WE should say it; no damn reason at all. Because it’s nonsense, whether we say so or not. We may as well say so.

    13. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2013 | 11:55 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:You’ve used this argument several years in a row, and not once has it resulted in the Yankees failing to win 90 games or failing to make the playoffs.Every year is different. The league and other teams are different. Maybe the Yankees were able to get fat on weak teams in the past and make the post-season. But, we know how that all worked out in October.

      Different argument.

      First, you have to get to the post-season. Then you can worry about winning it.

    14. Raf
      May 29th, 2013 | 11:58 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      Maybe the Yankees were able to get fat on weak teams in the past and make the post-season. But, we know how that all worked out in October.

      Maybe, but looking at the records of the teams they met in the post-season, maybe not.

    15. May 29th, 2013 | 12:10 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Of course, injuries are a valid excuse for a team’s failures.

      But, the Yankees are 30-21! They don’t have any failures…or, do they? And, that brings it back to my point.

    16. ken
      May 29th, 2013 | 12:10 pm

      Good teams overwhelm bad teams and play .500 against other good teams. In the end it gives you a winning record and hopefully a playoff spot. then the real season begins.

    17. MJ Recanati
      May 29th, 2013 | 12:31 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      But, I don’t care about the other teams. I’m a Yankees fan and I only care about how they are playing and whether or not their record is smoke and mirrors.

      This is always your standard response and it’s classic deflection. The point isn’t that I care about the Red Sox or anyone else. The point is that your methodology — hence the quotes — is wrong.

      You can discount (or reframe) wins any which way you like but the fact remains (as “Trashbag” said) that Toronto is a .500 team against everyone OTHER than the Yankees. If that’s the case, then they’re not the worst team in the league. But since you’re judging Toronto on their absolute record and not their record against the Yankees then you should similarly judge the Yankees on their absolute record instead of subtracting wins out and judging the leftovers.

    18. MJ Recanati
      May 29th, 2013 | 12:34 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Every year is different. The league and other teams are different. Maybe the Yankees were able to get fat on weak teams in the past and make the post-season. But, we know how that all worked out in October.

      The goalposts just moved. Again.

      If previous seasons are irrelevant then previous Octobers are also irrelevant.

    19. MJ Recanati
      May 29th, 2013 | 12:36 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      But, the Yankees are 30-21! They don’t have any failures…or, do they?

      Strawman. Who said the Yankees have no failures?

    20. Garcia
      May 29th, 2013 | 1:19 pm

      Wow reading this thread it just seems like we are all just chasing our tail with Steve’s circular arguments.

      I don’t really get why something so simple becomes so complex. If you use the same methodology to measure all teams, then you’ll be left with nothing to be upset about because you’ll see that most teams are performing in the same exact manner — with some deviations. I’m sure we’ll find some teams that are great against the good teams, and awful against the crappy ones. Those tend to be the outliers, yet interesting to discuss nevertheless.

      You’ll rarely find a team that will perform like the ’98 Yankees, those teams are rare and infrequent, you can run the same analysis every year and you’re pretty much guaranteed that you will a lot of good teams beat up on the bad teams. Not a new concept whatsoever.

      The thing is, Steve, you absolve yourself of ever finding out if your argument is totally flawed by saying stuff like: “I’m a Yankees fan and I only care about how they are playing and whether or not their record is smoke and mirrors.”

      I understand the idea behind sensationalizing things in order to generate discussion, but when you get so much backlash, don’t you think it is time to say maybe this is wrong and time to come up with another way to poke holes at the Yankees?

      I don’t think any one person here ever said this team is “great” and is truly one of the top 3 teams in the A.L., as it is currently constructed. I think they are a good and gritty bunch, they are pulling some games out of their ass. However, we haven’t seen the team every one expected to see, yet the pitching has been really good (you didn’t think their pitching would be that great), the hitting has left a lot to be desired. I just think that you look to frame all your arguments, no matter how illogical, against Brian Cashman that it makes extremely difficult to take you seriously.

      I learned all about baseball from my mom as a young kid, but as I got older I hated how as soon as the pitcher gave up two hits in a row she would be screaming to take him out. I thought it was comical, but I couldn’t fault my mom because she didn’t know any better. I find that you are a lot like my mom, but I know you know better. So all I’m left with thinking is that this is all about framing your arguments against Cashman. Don’t you think we already know how you feel?

    21. Ricketson
      May 29th, 2013 | 1:25 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      First, you have to get to the post-season. Then you can worry about winning it.

      Yes, and they’ll get very far this October with Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte (if healthy), and of course, Michael Pineda…

    22. trashbag
      May 29th, 2013 | 1:39 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      First, you have to get to the post-season. Then you can worry about winning it.

      Yes, and they’ll get very far this October with Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte (if healthy), and of course, Michael Pineda…

      Maybe, maybe not. But that’s an excellent top 3 for a playoff rotation, Steve.

    23. ken
      May 29th, 2013 | 1:44 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      First, you have to get to the post-season. Then you can worry about winning it.
      Yes, and they’ll get very far this October with Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte (if healthy), and of course, Michael Pineda…

      What’s wrong with that? CC should be better by then. The other two are as good as any and both have playoff experience. Fourth starter will emerge over the season and will be no worse than anyone else’s.

    24. Ricketson
      May 29th, 2013 | 1:45 pm

      @ trashbag:
      Sabathia, Kuroda, and Pettitte won’t get it done – even if Pettitte is healthy. They didn’t last year, and they won’t this year. At least the offense can be expected to improve…

    25. trashbag
      May 29th, 2013 | 1:51 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      Guess I should just take your word for it. Also, pitching was not the issue last year. Until the last CC start, those guys pitched great, Steve.

    26. May 29th, 2013 | 1:51 pm

      trashbag wrote:

      Maybe, maybe not. But that’s an excellent top 3 for a playoff rotation, Steve.

      I didn’t say that, Ricketson said it.

      But, for the record, have you seen CC in the post-season? He’s thrown a lot of duds. And, we have no idea if Pettitte can stay healthy. I don’t share your confidence.

    27. Ricketson
      May 29th, 2013 | 2:05 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      But, for the record, have you seen CC in the post-season? He’s thrown a lot of duds.

      A lot of innings in that left arm; a 4-4 start as the end of May, 2013; a lot of duds in the post-season; and Pettitte is 41 and has missed – what – 4 starts before the end of May, 2013, with one stint on the D.L.?
      Not the formidable front end of a starting rotation you’d like or expect to see a $231 million team take into Oct.
      Steve L. wrote:

      And, we have no idea if Pettitte can stay healthy. I don’t share your confidence.

      He can’t stay healthy. The question is, can he keep it together Sep. – Nov.?

    28. MJ Recanati
      May 29th, 2013 | 2:45 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      They didn’t last year, and they won’t this year.

      Pitching wasn’t the problem in last year’s playoffs.

    29. Raf
      May 29th, 2013 | 3:33 pm

      trashbag wrote:

      @ Ricketson:
      Guess I should just take your word for it. Also, pitching was not the issue last year. Until the last CC start, those guys pitched great, Steve.

      I’m pretty sure they’re not the same people.

    30. Greg H.
      May 29th, 2013 | 4:44 pm

      trashbag wrote:

      But the Jays are 21-22 against good teams (everyone but the Yankees, natch), which is basically .500, so the Jays are actually a solid .500 team against quality opponents, so the Yankees are actually good again but then the Jays can’t be good so then the Yankees can’t be good but then the Jays are good which means the Yankees are good which means the Jays are not good which means the Yankees are not good which which means the Jays are good which means the Yankees are good

      Leaving off the last phrase makes this a damn solid post…
      Who’s on first? I don’t know. Third Base!

    31. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2013 | 5:06 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      @ trashbag:
      Sabathia, Kuroda, and Pettitte won’t get it done – even if Pettitte is healthy. They didn’t last year, and they won’t this year. At least the offense can be expected to improve…

      Actually, they DID get it done last post-season. Pettitte did get it done in his post-seasons starts, as did Kuroda. CC got clubbed in game 4 of the ALCS, but he pitched brilliantly in game 5 of the ALDS.

      It was the offense that failed.

    32. Greg H.
      May 29th, 2013 | 5:59 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It was the offense that failed.

      Yep, not only it failed, it disappeared. And as difficult as that was to watch, right after our offense puked against Detroit, Detroit’s offense puked in the World Series – just as badly.

      It happens. And the Giants, a team with historically no offense, had a tremendous offensive post series in 2010 and not too shabby in 2011 either. Go figure.

    33. Greg H.
      May 29th, 2013 | 6:00 pm

      post series = post season

    34. Ricketson
      May 29th, 2013 | 7:31 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Actually, they DID get it done last post-season. Pettitte did get it done in his post-seasons starts, as did Kuroda. CC got clubbed in game 4 of the ALCS, but he pitched brilliantly in game 5 of the ALDS.
      It was the offense that failed.

      Didn’t get it done in that they didn’t win anything; after Kuroda and Pettitte, I don’t have a lot of confidence in the rest of Cashman’s staff as far as winning at least a pennant is concerned. But in fairness to Cashman, he hasn’t been the G.M. for that long, and hasn’t had a lot of money to work with.

      Maybe Pettitte will be healthy and be the postseason pitcher he’s been in the past; maybe Sabathia and Hughes and Phelps will have few poor outings; and maybe the team will get past Detroit with at least several more hitters that can be expected to produce in Oct. than last year and with Swisher in Cleveland and Martin in Pittsburgh and Granderson on the D.L., and Pineda watching the games from a bar somewhere.

      But Pettitte’s non-availability, Sabathia becoming less than the pitcher he has been in the past, and this staff not getting the team past the A.L.C.S. wouldn’t be surprising; it’s not the strength it should be.

    35. Raf
      May 29th, 2013 | 7:42 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Maybe Pettitte will be healthy and be the postseason pitcher he’s been in the past

      It’s possible; he can also get lit up like he did in game 6 of the 2001 WS.

    36. MJ Recanati
      May 29th, 2013 | 8:58 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      and Pineda watching the games from a bar somewhere.

      I’m not a big believer in Pineda’s long term potential but to disparage him for playoff performances he’s not yet had seems beyond unfair to me.

      Again, I ask: why do you post here? Trolling is a waste of everyone’s time.

    37. McMillan
      May 29th, 2013 | 10:26 pm

      trashbag wrote:

      But that’s an excellent top 3 for a playoff rotation

      Verlander, Scherzer (of the Granderson trade), and Sanchez is an excellent top 3 for a playoff rotation; the 2013 versions of Sabathia, Kuroda, and Pettitte somewhat less – but anything is possible: Cashman was planning for a career as a U.P.S. driver in 1990, and look where he is now.
      Hopefully Pettitte remains healthy, everything fall into a place, and the team wins something more than a division title for only the second time since 2005.
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Trolling is a waste of everyone’s time.

      Agreed.

    38. McMillan
      May 29th, 2013 | 10:51 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      In summary, that’s it. The New York Yankees are not playing well this season, even if their won-loss record is 30-21. And, it’s time to wake-up and realize that in Yankeeland.

      30-22. Is Cashman’s $231 million House of Cards beginning to implode? Can they hold on until Pineda returns?

    39. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2013 | 11:31 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      It was the offense that failed.
      Yep, not only it failed, it disappeared. And as difficult as that was to watch, right after our offense puked against Detroit, Detroit’s offense puked in the World Series – just as badly.
      It happens. And the Giants, a team with historically no offense, had a tremendous offensive post series in 2010 and not too shabby in 2011 either. Go figure.

      I know.

      That’s why I laugh when somebody has the nerve to say they KNOW what constitutes a championship-level team before the playoffs start.

    40. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2013 | 11:33 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      trashbag wrote:

      Verlander, Scherzer (of the Granderson trade), and Sanchez is an excellent top 3 for a playoff rotation;

      Didn’t get it done in that they didn’t win anything.
      To quote an expert on championship teams.

    41. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2013 | 11:34 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Steve L. wrote:
      In summary, that’s it. The New York Yankees are not playing well this season, even if their won-loss record is 30-21. And, it’s time to wake-up and realize that in Yankeeland.
      30-22. Is Cashman’s $231 million House of Cards beginning to implode? Can they hold on until Pineda returns?

      No, they’re just playing back to the true level of talent on this roster.

      But the cavalry is on the way. Tex and Youk this weekend. Cervell and Granderson within a month or so. Jeter and A-Rod maybe a month after that. Pettitte soon.

    42. McMillan
      May 30th, 2013 | 11:31 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Didn’t get it done in that they didn’t win anything. To quote an expert on championship teams.

      They won the 2012 American League pennant – in 4 games – with a $133 million payroll to start the season – the same number of pennants Cashman has won since “wresting” complete autonomy in 2005 and with $200-30 million payrolls each season.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      But the cavalry is on the way. Tex and Youk this weekend. Cervell and Granderson within a month or so. Jeter and A-Rod maybe a month after that. Pettitte soon.

      Jeter, Texeira, and Youkilis anyway… How “soon” will Pettitte miss another start after he returns? The longer Granderson and Rodriguez stay away, the better…

    43. Evan3457
      May 30th, 2013 | 3:38 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      They won the 2012 American League pennant – in 4 games – with a $133 million payroll to start the season – the same number of pennants Cashman has won since “wresting” complete autonomy in 2005 and with $200-30 million payrolls each season.

      Irrelevant. In terms of “winning”, there’s “World Series Winner” and everything else. Dombrowski is a genius GM with a sterling reputation, and he’s been in charge of the Tigers for 11 years, with no titles to show for it. He might win one this year; he might not.

      If the Yanks had won a couple of more AL pennants, but not the Series, you’d be setting the bar at “should have won more World Series with the $200-230 million payrolls”.

      Jeter, Texeira, and Youkilis anyway… How “soon” will Pettitte miss another start after he returns? The longer Granderson and Rodriguez stay away, the better…

      If you don’t think the Yanks need a legit 4th option in the outfield, you’re kidding yourself. Whatever else you think of Granderson, he’s knocked in and scored over 100 runs the last two seasons. You know how many outfielders have done that? Two. Curtis and Ryan Braun. Which is not suggest that Curtis is Ryan Braun. Far from it. But it is to suggest that Curtis has scored many runs and driven in many the last two years, in comparison to other regular outfielders, anyway.

    44. McMillan
      May 30th, 2013 | 4:06 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Irrelevant. In terms of “winning”, there’s “World Series Winner” and everything else.

      Nonsense. Winning a pennant is something, and worth a lot of money to an organization; winning a division title something considerably less.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      [Dombrowski's] been in charge of the Tigers for 11 years, with no titles to show for it.

      Sounds like a record similar to Cashman’s less one world championship and the equivalent of many hundreds of millions of annual Cashman alimony payments in payroll spent…

    45. Evan3457
      May 30th, 2013 | 6:06 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Irrelevant. In terms of “winning”, there’s “World Series Winner” and everything else.
      Nonsense. Winning a pennant is something, and worth a lot of money to an organization; winning a division title something considerably less.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      [Dombrowski's] been in charge of the Tigers for 11 years, with no titles to show for it.
      Sounds like a record similar to Cashman’s less one world championship and the equivalent of many hundreds of millions of annual Cashman alimony payments in payroll spent…

      Near as I can figure, Tigers got something less than $16 million more for making and losing the World Series in 4 games, plus whatever they made off the 2 home games.

      Winning a pennant is something to you because the Yanks haven’t won too many of those, while they have won many divisional titles. Therefore you have to cheapen the relative value of being the best loser vs. that of being the 2nd or 3rd best loser in order to argue against Cashman.

      0 Rings is 0 Rings.

    46. Evan3457
      May 30th, 2013 | 6:11 pm

      Note that Joe Girardi wears #28, not #40.

    47. McMillan
      May 30th, 2013 | 8:36 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Winning a pennant is something to you because the Yanks haven’t won too many of those, while they have won many divisional titles… 0 Rings is 0 Rings.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Note that Joe Girardi wears #28, not #40.

      No kidding? And he would wear the number of pennants before the number of division titles. Absolutely childish argument – did your off-track students come up with it? Or M.J. Can’t? For your information, Detroit DID receive rings for winning the pennant last year – however you don’t win a ring for securing a postseason appearance or winning a division title.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Near as I can figure, Tigers got something less than $16 million more for making and losing the World Series in 4 games, plus whatever they made off the 2 home games.

      $16 million plus whatever they made off the 2 home games more than John Cashman’s son produced for the Steinbrenner family – assuming, of course, your “back-of-the-envelople calcuations” are more accurate than they have been in the past… Fair enough: defending Cashman is not an easy assignment or undertaking for anyone…

    48. Evan3457
      May 30th, 2013 | 9:32 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Note that Joe Girardi wears #28, not #40.
      No kidding? And he would wear the number of pennants before the number of division titles. Absolutely childish argument – did your off-track students come up with it? Or M.J. Can’t?

      Absolutely moronic non-reply.My off-track students could definitely come up with something more sensible, more adult that that.

      Why does Girardi wear #28? Do you think HE values winning the pennant as opposed to winning the World Series? What is HIS goal every year?

      For your information, Detroit DID receive rings for winning the pennant last year – however you don’t win a ring for securing a postseason appearance or winning a division title.

      Doubly moronic. Nobody brags about their “pennant winning rings”. Nobody. You are selectively using pennants because the Yankees have won so many divisions and won so few pennants lately.

      $16 million plus whatever they made off the 2 home games more than John Cashman’s son produced for the Steinbrenner family – assuming, of course, your “back-of-the-envelople calcuations” are more accurate than they have been in the past… Fair enough: defending Cashman is not an easy assignment or undertaking for anyone…

      My back of the envelope calculations were made before the majority of the injuries that happened, happened. Therefore, you can’t judge their accuracy, because they were made before those injuries occurred.

    49. McMillan
      May 30th, 2013 | 9:59 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Why does Girardi wear #28? Do you think HE values winning the pennant as opposed to winning the World Series?

      I think he values both; winning a World Series more than a pennant; a pennant more than a division title; a division title more than a date with Louise Meanwell…
      Evan3457 wrote:

      [T]he Yankees have won so many divisions and won so few pennants lately.

      LOL. Correct. That would be one pennant in the last nine years with $200-35 million spent in payroll in each season. And the same “G.M.”
      Evan3457 wrote:

      My back of the envelope calculations were made before the majority of the injuries that happened, happened. Therefore, you can’t judge their accuracy, because they were made before those injuries occurred.

      You did a better job than M.J. could have…

    50. Evan3457
      May 30th, 2013 | 10:24 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Yankees have won so many divisions and won so few pennants lately.

      LOL. Correct. That would be one pennant in the last nine years with $200-35 million spent in payroll in each season. And the same “G.M.”

      I’ve no idea why you’re laughing. You have to set the bar at pennant, because otherwise, your anti-Cashman tirades are laughable on their face. As I’ve shown over and over again, dollars are not destiny in MLB, haven’t been since the advent of the Rule 4 Draft.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      My back of the envelope calculations were made before the majority of the injuries that happened, happened. Therefore, you can’t judge their accuracy, because they were made before those injuries occurred.

      You did a better job than M.J. could have…

      Evading the point. Not a surprise.

    51. Mr. October
      June 2nd, 2013 | 8:49 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Doubly moronic. Nobody brags about their “pennant winning rings”. Nobody. You are selectively using pennants because the Yankees have won so many divisions and won so few pennants lately.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Evading the point. Not a surprise.

      Less “moronic” than crediting Cashman with three world championships from 1998-2000 for which he has three rings. The “point” is that rings are not awarded for division titles, they are awarded for pennants and world championships. And since John Cashman’s son “wrested” his almost complete “control of the universe” in 2005, there has been only one such ceremony in The Bronx.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      You have to set the bar at pennant, because otherwise, your anti-Cashman tirades are laughable on their face.

      What’s laughable on its face is calling one pennant and one world championship in nine years with $200-30 mil. spent each season and an interminable game of musical chairs in the front end of the rotation “spectacular success.”

    52. June 2nd, 2013 | 11:17 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Less “moronic” than crediting Cashman with three world championships from 1998-2000 for which he has three rings. The “point” is that rings are not awarded for division titles, they are awarded for pennants and world championships. And since John Cashman’s son “wrested” his almost complete “control of the universe” in 2005, there has been only one such ceremony in The Bronx.

      Amen. And, that one ring in 2009 was fuel by the Stein Bros. checkbook and A-Rod being full on Canadian PEDs.

    53. Raf
      June 2nd, 2013 | 11:57 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      And, that one ring in 2009 was fuel by the Stein Bros. checkbook

      Yeah, let’s not act like the Yankees weren’t spending before that;
      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/31/sports/notebook-budget-what-yankees-budget.html

    54. LMJ229
      June 3rd, 2013 | 12:27 am

      Raf wrote:

      Yeah, let’s not act like the Yankees weren’t spending before that;
      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/31/sports/notebook-budget-what-yankees-budget.html

      While it may be true that the Yankees have always outspent every other ML team, I believe the gap between them and the rest of the league has been consistently larger than years past during Cashman’s reign.

    55. Greg H.
      June 3rd, 2013 | 1:21 am

      Those of us on this site that defend Cashman don’t necessarily do so because we’re “Cashman Fans.” I will speak for myself only, but I defend him here because most of the arguments made against him here are not logical, and/or they smell like spoiled Yankee fans.

      The most common thread is the old “the more you spend, the better the team should be,” and if you spend the most, and your team doesn’t win a world series, then the GM is an idiot. This has ben proven patently false, mostly by the Yankees themselves, but more recently by quite a few other teams, like the Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers, Angels, Blue Jays, Marlins, et al.

      The second most ridiculous premise is the idea that “nothing matters except world series rings.” Really? Well it’s been demonstrated irrefutably that making the playoffs dramatically increases the team’s chances of winning the world series by 100% over those teams that do not make the playoffs. So if the goal of every team is to win the world series, then the primary goal of all teams must be to make the playoffs. And the Yankees, under their current leadership, make the playoffs more than any other team.

      No one here is contending that Cashman is the best GM. But he is not a bad GM, and he’s not an idiot. By any objective measure, he’s in the top third. But most importantly, his teams usually make the playoffs, which says to me that he gives the team a chance to win it all every year. When fans take that for granted, that’s acting spoiled.

    56. Raf
      June 3rd, 2013 | 8:53 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      Yeah, let’s not act like the Yankees weren’t spending before that;
      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/31/sports/notebook-budget-what-yankees-budget.html
      While it may be true that the Yankees have always outspent every other ML team, I believe the gap between them and the rest of the league has been consistently larger than years past during Cashman’s reign.

      You may want to take a look at the salary structure of the game since then. Take a look at payroll vs revenue. Account for the fact that the Yankees have been in the hunt since 1993.

    57. LMJ229
      June 3rd, 2013 | 9:55 am

      Greg H. wrote:

      The most common thread is the old “the more you spend, the better the team should be,” and if you spend the most, and your team doesn’t win a world series, then the GM is an idiot. This has been proven patently false, mostly by the Yankees themselves, but more recently by quite a few other teams, like the Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers, Angels, Blue Jays, Marlins, et al.

      If this philosophy has been proven patently false, then why are all of the Yankee teams consistently built on spending? And isn’t that exactly how we won the World Series in 2009 – the only World Series fully attributable to Cashman? If you truly believe that championship teams are not built via the highest payroll how can you defend a GM that consistently outspends every other team?

    58. MJ Recanati
      June 3rd, 2013 | 11:24 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      If this philosophy has been proven patently false, then why are all of the Yankee teams consistently built on spending?

      Because until the recent changes to the CBA and the sudden infusion of cash that other teams have received through renegotiated media rights deals, that was an advantage that the Yankees had over nearly every other team in the game. Why would the Yankees not use such an advantage for as long as it was available to them?

      LMJ229 wrote:

      And isn’t that exactly how we won the World Series in 2009 – the only World Series fully attributable to Cashman?

      The Yankees had as much money coming off the books in 2008 as they added in 2009. To argue that the 2009 World Series was purely about spending misses the point. It was about replacing outgoing players — Giambi, Mussina, Pavano, Abreu — with new ones.

    59. Raf
      June 3rd, 2013 | 11:31 am

      @ LMJ229:
      If this philosphy is true, why haven’t the teams mentioned by Greg H. won more?

    60. LMJ229
      June 3rd, 2013 | 2:06 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Why would the Yankees not use such an advantage for as long as it was available to them?

      They should certainly use every advantage available to them. But I think that’s the point people are trying to make who believe that the Yankees spending should equate to championships. If the Yankees have the “advantage” shouldn’t they win more than the lesser, disadvantaged teams?
      Raf wrote:

      @ LMJ229:
      If this philosphy is true, why haven’t the teams mentioned by Greg H. won more?

      Because it isn’t true. But it’s the philosophy the Yankees have always subscribed to as you well know.

    61. MJ Recanati
      June 3rd, 2013 | 2:31 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      But I think that’s the point people are trying to make who believe that the Yankees spending should equate to championships. If the Yankees have the “advantage” shouldn’t they win more than the lesser, disadvantaged teams?

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Because it isn’t true.

      You not only answered your own question, you pointed out why the “people…who believe that the Yankees spending should equate to championships” don’t really understand the issue.

      I guess I don’t really understand what your point is. The Yankees have been spending since the day the Steinbrenner family took over the team in 1973. Until recently, the system was designed to encourage that kind of spending (or if not encourage, not offer much beyond token resistance against it). The Yankees have been spectacularly successful as a free-spending team, far more successful than other teams that spent lavishly. You can’t guarantee World Series success by spending, especially now that the playoffs have expanded and the regular season is becoming more meaningless.

    62. LMJ229
      June 3rd, 2013 | 3:20 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      Just so you know where I am coming from, I don’t subscribe to the theory that spending = championships. However, it seems to me that the Yankees do subscribe to this philosophy as evidenced by their payroll figures year in and year out. I think it makes them irresponsible in a way. It does not force them to develop players from within. They are always looking outside the organization to fill holes.

    63. Evan3457
      June 3rd, 2013 | 3:20 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      E
      Less “moronic” than crediting Cashman with three world championships from 1998-2000 for which he has three rings. The “point” is that rings are not awarded for division titles, they are awarded for pennants and world championships.

      I’m not giving Cashman sole credit for 1998-2000. Nobody here is, I think. Next.

      And since John Cashman’s son “wrested” his almost complete “control of the universe” in 2005, there has been only one such ceremony in The Bronx.

      Actually, he hasn’t had complete control since 2007, when Hank re-signed A-Rod over his head, and in the 2010-11 off-season, when Levine and co. shoved Soriano in over Cashman’s objections. Next.

      What’s laughable on its face is calling one pennant and one world championship in nine years with $200-30 mil. spent each season and an interminable game of musical chairs in the front end of the rotation “spectacular success.”

      I don’t think I’ve ever called Cashman’s record a “spectacular success”. Nice straw man, though. Next.

      Oh, and name the team that doesn’t turn over the front end of its rotation every 3 or 4 years at the latest. The Braves of the mid-late 90′s and early 00′s are the only one.

    64. Evan3457
      June 3rd, 2013 | 3:22 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Raf wrote:

      Yeah, let’s not act like the Yankees weren’t spending before that;
      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/31/sports/notebook-budget-what-yankees-budget.html

      While it may be true that the Yankees have always outspent every other ML team, I believe the gap between them and the rest of the league has been consistently larger than years past during Cashman’s reign.

      Yes it is. Keeping Bernie, Jeter, Posada, Pettitte and Mariano around costs lots of money. So does signing 7-8 year free agents, which is what the market was for CC, Tex, A-Rod and Giambi.

    65. MJ Recanati
      June 3rd, 2013 | 3:27 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      However, it seems to me that the Yankees do subscribe to this philosophy as evidenced by their payroll figures year in and year out.

      I don’t think they equate spending to World Championships (though George was foolish enough to believe that one guaranteed the other). I think they equate spending to good business in terms of helping them build the YES brand which also helped finance the new stadium. Alos, obviously, spending helped keep the team competitive on an annual basis. It’s a lot easier to avoid the down years if you can maintain a healthy enough payroll but, as we’ve seen with other teams that spent lavishly, that doesn’t guarantee anything. Again, we’ve seen plenty of teams spend in the off-season and fail to even qualify for the playoffs. The Yankees have managed to avoid those kinds of seasons which tells me that they must be doing something right if so many other teams that spend heavily can’t even do that.

    66. MJ Recanati
      June 3rd, 2013 | 3:28 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      So does signing 7-8 year free agents, which is what the market was for CC, Tex, A-Rod and Giambi.

      Mussina too.

    67. Ricketson
      June 5th, 2013 | 8:13 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      The most common thread is the old “the more you spend, the better the team should be,” and if you spend the most, and your team doesn’t win a world series, then the GM is an idiot.

      The more money a franchise spends on payroll, the better the team should be. Please quote the individual that posted a statement(s) maintaining that if a franchise spends the most money on payroll for a given year, and does not win a World Series, the G.M. of that franchise is therefore an idiot; please provide the quote or a specific reference to the post(s).
      Greg H. wrote:

      The second most ridiculous premise is the idea that “nothing matters except world series rings.

      Once again, please prove a specific reference to a post in which a commenter has maintained that nothing matters (e.g. an A.L. pennant) except a world championship.
      Greg H. wrote:

      No one here is contending that Cashman is the best GM. But he is not a bad GM, and he’s not an idiot. By any objective measure, he’s in the top third.

      Can you provide us with something of a more detailed explanation as to how you place this idiot amongst the top third of G.M.s in M.L.B.?Greg H. wrote:

      But most importantly, his teams usually make the playoffs, which says to me that he gives the team a chance to win it all every year. When fans take that for granted, that’s acting spoiled.

      A team that wins a division title and a team capable of winning a world championship are not necessarily the same. Fans expect the team to win more than one pennant in nine years when the organization outspends all other franchises by tens-of-millions, and in some cases hundreds-of-millions of dollars in each season – that is a reasonable expectation. If an organization is incompetent and fails to do so, fans have a right to express their discontent.

    68. Mr. October
      June 5th, 2013 | 8:20 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’m not giving Cashman sole credit for 1998-2000. Nobody here is, I think. Next.

      Some here have seemingly tried to.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Actually, he hasn’t had complete control since 2007, when Hank re-signed A-Rod over his head, and in the 2010-11 off-season, when Levine and co. shoved Soriano in over Cashman’s objections. Next.

      Actually, I wrote “almost.”

    69. Ricketson
      June 5th, 2013 | 8:38 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I don’t think I’ve ever called Cashman’s record a “spectacular success”. Nice straw man, though. Next.

      I believe it was Mary Jane that previoulsy referred to Cashman’s record as “spectacularly successful…”
      LMJ229 wrote:

      If this philosophy has been proven patently false, then why are all of the Yankee teams consistently built on spending? And isn’t that exactly how we won the World Series in 2009 – the only World Series fully attributable to Cashman?

      And the only World Series championship team with a payroll in excess of $200 million.
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Again, we’ve seen plenty of teams spend in the off-season and fail to even qualify for the playoffs. The Yankees have managed to avoid those kinds of seasons which tells me that they must be doing something right if so many other teams that spend heavily can’t even do that.

      Please provide examples of some of these “plenty of teams” that have consistently failed to make the playoffs despite having had some of the highest payrolls in M.L.B. in each season, and continuity in terms of ownership and at the executive management levels.
      The Yankees have managed to avoid pennant-winning seasons in all years since 2005 with the exception of 2009 despite having had the highest payroll in M.L.B. each year by a substantial amount, which tells me they must be doing something wrong.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.