• Reggie Has A Book Coming Out

    Posted by on October 5th, 2013 · Comments (32)

    Via the AP -

    Reggie Jackson insists in his new autobiography that he never disparaged Thurman Munson in an attention-grabbing Sport magazine report 36 years ago, a claim the author immediately denied.

    Jackson also criticizes Billy Martin, praises George Steinbrenner and portrays racial discrimination he faced throughout his career.

    Robert Ward’s story in the June 1977 issue quoted Jackson as saying, “Munson thinks he can be the straw that stirs the drink, but he can only stir it bad.”

    “It never happened. At least not like he said it did,” Jackson wrote in “Reggie Jackson: Becoming Mr. October,” scheduled for publication Tuesday by Doubleday. The Associated Press purchased an early copy.

    “The whole time he was trying to feed me that quote, but I know I never said it,” Jackson said in the book, written with Kevin Baker. “There’s no way I’d be that dumb to knock the captain of the team — and, by the way, the guy who told George Steinbrenner to go get me on the free agent-market.”

    Jackson has at times denied making that remark. In a telephone interview Friday, Ward stood by his report.

    “He’s been lying about it since it happened,” Ward said. “He’s just lied and lied. And now I think probably he’s gotten to the age where he actually believes the stuff he says here. … I made nothing up. Not one thing.”

    Ward also denied Jackson’s claim that he has refused to meet with him.

    Jackson also wrote an autobiography “Reggie” with Mike Lupica that was published in 1994. This book focuses mainly on the Yankees’ 1977 and 1978 seasons.

    Now a special adviser to the Yankees, Jackson has fond recollections of Steinbrenner, who owned the Yankees from 1973 until his death three years ago. He details many of his feuds with Martin, his manager for parts of three seasons.

    “He lied to people,” Jackson wrote. “That was his history. He lied to the general manager; he lied to the owner. He lied to players all the time, which was a big reason why he wore out his welcome.”

    Jackson also claimed Martin, who died in 1989, made anti-Semitic remarks about a Yankees pitcher. Ken Holtzman, who was Jewish, played for the Yankees in 1977. And Jackson said most of the time Willie Randolph was the only black player on the team sympathetic to him.

    I wonder if anyone will really be interested in a Reggie book now?

    Comments on Reggie Has A Book Coming Out

    1. KPOcala
      October 5th, 2013 | 10:45 am

      He was one of my favorites. Now, he’s making himself into an older version of A-Rod, a buffoon. Must be running short of cash, and attention…….

    2. redbug
      October 5th, 2013 | 11:16 am

      I couldn’t stand Reggie, in part due to that quote. He was always a showboat. He and Arod are have a lot in common.

      And no, I doubt he’ll sell many books. I’m amazed Doubleday is publishing it.

    3. Corey
      October 5th, 2013 | 11:51 am

      Reggie = Yesteryears A-Rod

    4. October 5th, 2013 | 12:57 pm

      I’m sick of Reggie Jackson. Jackson knows where his bread is buttered, he praised George Steinbrenner, how conveenient. The biggest myth of Jackson’s stay with the Yankees is his work in 77. When he arrived the Yankees were the defending American League champions. The team record (they played 159 games) 97-62. They won the AL championship in 5 over KC. Jackson’s first year the team was 100-62 and won the AL championship in 5 over KC. The big difference was the World Series and like most things in baseball it boiled down to pitching. Which starting staff would you rather go to war with, Dock Ellis, Doyle Alexander, Catfish Hunter, Ed Figueroa or Don Gullett, Ron Guidry, Mike Torrez and Catfish Hunter. It was the pitching in 77 that made the difference.

      I’ve written about this before, the biggest reason the team prevailed in the 77 postseason was one man, Sparky Lyle. This can not be seriously debated. His work in game 4 of the playoffs (he entered the game in the 4th and pitched the rest of the way!), his appearance the next night in game 5 (he closed the game holding KC), and game 1 of the World Series coming on in the 9th and pitched to the finish line in the 12th. He was the winning pitcher in all three games. His performance in that postseason is arguably the greatest in Yankee history.

      Jackson was a very important part of the 77 team, but his contribution is constantly overrated and he clearly was not the main reason they won it all in 77. The most ridiculous thing the Yankees ever did was retire his number.

    5. Kamieniecki
      October 5th, 2013 | 1:46 pm

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      The big difference was the World Series and like most things in baseball it boiled down to pitching. Which starting staff would you rather go to war with, Dock Ellis, Doyle Alexander, Catfish Hunter, Ed Figueroa or Don Gullett, Ron Guidry, Mike Torrez and Catfish Hunter. It was the pitching in 77 that made the difference.

      Agreed. Guidry, Gullett, Hunter and Torrez outpitched Hooten, John, Rau, and Sutton (4.30 to 4.71). And then there was Lyle: 1-0; 1.93. E.R.A.
      @ Raf:
      @ Evan3457:

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      The most ridiculous thing the Yankees ever did was retire [Reggie Jackson's] number.

      One of the most. Retiring the number of any player that played only 5 years and 23% of his career with an organization is ridiculous, and it diminishes the significance of the tradition itself.
      @ MJ Recanati:

    6. Evan3457
      October 5th, 2013 | 2:24 pm

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      I’m sick of Reggie Jackson. Jackson knows where his bread is buttered, he praised George Steinbrenner, how conveenient. The biggest myth of Jackson’s stay with the Yankees is his work in 77. When he arrived the Yankees were the defending American League champions. The team record (they played 159 games) 97-62. They won the AL championship in 5 over KC. Jackson’s first year the team was 100-62 and won the AL championship in 5 over KC. The big difference was the World Series and like most things in baseball it boiled down to pitching. Which starting staff would you rather go to war with, Dock Ellis, Doyle Alexander, Catfish Hunter, Ed Figueroa or Don Gullett, Ron Guidry, Mike Torrez and Catfish Hunter. It was the pitching in 77 that made the difference.
      I’ve written about this before, the biggest reason the team prevailed in the 77 postseason was one man, Sparky Lyle. This can not be seriously debated. His work in game 4 of the playoffs (he entered the game in the 4th and pitched the rest of the way!), his appearance the next night in game 5 (he closed the game holding KC), and game 1 of the World Series coming on in the 9th and pitched to the finish line in the 12th. He was the winning pitcher in all three games. His performance in that postseason is arguably the greatest in Yankee history.
      Jackson was a very important part of the 77 team, but his contribution is constantly overrated and he clearly was not the main reason they won it all in 77. The most ridiculous thing the Yankees ever did was retire his number.

      Catfish Hunter was injured in 1977. He went 9-9 with a 4.71 ERA. Figueroa started started game 4 of the ALCS, was given leads of 4-0 and 5-2, but was taken out in the 4th by Martin. Lyle pitched the last 5 1/3 to protect that lead. So Martin started Hunter in game 2 of the World Series, and he got knocked out in the 3rd inning, trailing 5-1. The Yanks lost 6-1. Hunter didn’t pitch in the ALCS, and didn’t see another inning in that series.

      Gullett was also hurt by the end of the 1977 season. He started game 1 of the ALCS, and the Royals knocked him out in the 3rd inning with the Yankees trailing 6-0. The Yanks didn’t start Gullet again in the ALCS. They gave him an extra day of rest, and he pitched a good game in game 1 of the Series, leaving after 8 up 3-2. Lyle didn’t hold the lead that night, but went on to win it in the 12th inning when Blair singled, scoring Randolph from 2nd. 5 days later, however, the Dodgers beat up Gullett, knocking him out in the 5th inning, on their way to a 10-4 win.

      Guidry pitched well in 2 of his 3 post-season starts. Torrez pitched well in all 3 of his, and relieved Guidry in Game 5 of the ALCS.

      It’s much more accurate to say that Torrez and Guidry carried the Yanks to the title, aided greatly by Tidrow and especially Lyle. They didn’t award MVPs of the ALCS in those days, but if they had, it would almost surely have gone to Lyle.

      ========================
      Hunter and Gullet didn’t outpitch anybody in that post-season.

      Ed Figueroa never pitched a good post-season game in 7 tries, but without him the Yanks don’t make it to the playoffs in either 1977 or 1978, and never win a title in that era.

    7. Mr. October
      October 5th, 2013 | 3:29 pm

      I think everyone should buy the book.

    8. Kamieniecki
      October 5th, 2013 | 6:21 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It’s much more accurate to say that Torrez and Guidry carried the Yanks to the title…

      Two starting pitchers not with the team or part of the postseason rotation in 1976.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Ed Figueroa never pitched a good post-season game in 7 tries, but without him the Yanks don’t make it to the playoffs in either 1977 or 1978, and never win a title in that era.

      Pretty good trade by the G.M. that picked Figeroa and Rivers up. I don’t see one “Top 10 New York Yankees Trades in the George Steinbrenner Era” trade from 1998-2010:

      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/377457-top-10-new-york-yankees-trades-in-the-george-steinbrenner-era

      I wonder why…

    9. Evan3457
      October 5th, 2013 | 7:01 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      It’s much more accurate to say that Torrez and Guidry carried the Yanks to the title…
      Two starting pitchers not with the team or part of the postseason rotation in 1976.
      Torrez would also be an example of a guy who was a decent pitcher for a long career, but never great, never really close to great, who pitched pretty well for one post-season, and helped carry a team to a title. He had one excellent season for the O’s in 1976, and finished 16th in the AL MVP race, but never made an All-Star team or got a single vote for the Cy Young. He never pitched in a post-season game before or after, and his only other “playoff” experience was blowing the 2-0 lead to the Yankees in the 1978 AL East playoff game.

      He pitched OK for the Yanks during the 1977 regular season, nothing special, a little above average. In the ALCS he had one mediocre start, and one good relief appearance. The best thing Torrez had going for him in the World Series is that the Yanks scored for him in both starts. They got 5 runs for him in his 1st start. (He blew a 3-0 lead they gave him in the 1st inning, but pitched well after the 3rd. In the 6th game, he gave the Dodgers a 2-0 lead in the 1st, and after Chambliss tied it with a 2 run HR, he gave a run right back in the 3rd, and the Dodgers led 3-2. Then Reggie gave him the lead with 3 staight HRs for good for 5 runs, and he was able to finish the game with the relatively big lead.

      Pretty good trade by the G.M. that picked Figeroa and Rivers up. I don’t see one “Top 10 New York Yankees Trades in the George Steinbrenner Era” trade from 1998-2010:

      Yes, it was a good trade. Picking up Figueroa definitely helped the Yankees win 3 straight pennants and 2 titles, even though he was all but useless in the post-season. Think about that one for awhile.

    10. Sweet Lou
      October 5th, 2013 | 7:14 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Pretty good trade by the G.M. that picked Figeroa and Rivers up.

      The “Smiling Cobra.” Gabe Paul was nicknamed that for his expertise in trades. Today, the Yankees have the “One-Eyed Trouser Snake.”

      Paul had wanted left-hander Frank Tanana, not Figueroa, but Angels’ general manager Harry Dalton refused to part with Tanana.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      I don’t see one “Top 10 New York Yankees Trades in the George Steinbrenner Era” trade from 1998-2010:

      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/377457-top-10-new-york-yankees-trades-in-the-george-steinbrenner-era

      … More than one of “the 10 Worst Trades in Team History,” not just the George Steinbrenner Era, can be found from 1998-2010:

      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/653259-new-york-yankees-power-ranking-the-10-worst-trades-in-team-history

    11. KPOcala
      October 5th, 2013 | 7:43 pm

      @ redbug:Redbug, with you on the quote, particularly as I’ve grown older, and my understanding of the dynamic changed. Still, he was cool, and a tough player. And he’d be the first to tell you ;)

    12. #15
      October 5th, 2013 | 7:53 pm

      Won’t be on my Kindle. Never liked him. Never will. I don’t like his number in MP. I can say from first hand conversations that these former teammates didn’t like him at all… Rivers, Gamble, Dent, Snatcher, Nettles, White. According to Blair, who also didn’t like him, if he hadn’t stepped in Reggie would have had a brawl with a teammate nearly every night. Blair said he managed to prevail more often than not by telling guys they didn’t need to like him; as long as he hit 30 and a 100 there was a spot for him on the team.

    13. Kamieniecki
      October 5th, 2013 | 7:53 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Picking up Figueroa definitely helped the Yankees win 3 straight pennants and 2 titles, even though he was all but useless in the post-season. Think about that one for awhile.

      @ Evan3457:
      What’s your point? I can’t wait to hear this one…

    14. Evan3457
      October 5th, 2013 | 8:39 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Picking up Figueroa definitely helped the Yankees win 3 straight pennants and 2 titles, even though he was all but useless in the post-season. Think about that one for awhile.
      @ Evan3457:
      What’s your point? I can’t wait to hear this one…

      You’re a “genius”. You figure it out.

    15. Kamieniecki
      October 5th, 2013 | 9:42 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      You’re a “genius”. You figure it out.

      @ Evan3457:
      The only thing that Figueroa had in common with any starting pitcher Cashman acquired from 2005-13 not named Sabathia is that he did not perform in October?

    16. Kamieniecki
      October 5th, 2013 | 9:46 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      “genius”.

      @ Evan3457:
      F.Y.I. – Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks; in the event one of your off-track students asks you the question.

    17. Evan3457
      October 6th, 2013 | 12:48 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      “genius”.
      @ Evan3457:
      F.Y.I. – Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks; in the event one of your off-track students asks you the question.

      In the U.S. yes, periods and commas do go inside quotation marks. The British place them logically where they belong.

      Being the proofread Nazi earns you 0 points, as usual.

    18. Evan3457
      October 6th, 2013 | 12:50 am

      FYI, it’s not necessary to put periods in between F, Y and I.

      And now, I’m a proofread Nazi, too! Again.

    19. Evan3457
      October 6th, 2013 | 12:55 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      You’re a “genius”. You figure it out.
      @ Evan3457:
      The only thing that Figueroa had in common with any starting pitcher Cashman acquired from 2005-13 not named Sabathia is that he did not perform in October?

      Nope.
      Chacon pitched well in his only post-season start for the Yanks.
      Nova pitched well before getting hurt in game 5 of 2011.
      Kuroda pitched well for them in last year’s post-season.

    20. Kamieniecki
      October 6th, 2013 | 2:28 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The only thing that Figueroa had in common with any starting pitcher Cashman acquired from 2005-13 not named Sabathia is that he did not perform in October?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Nope.

      Chacon pitched well in his only post-season start for the Yanks.
      Nova pitched well before getting hurt in game 5 of 2011.
      Kuroda pitched well for them in last year’s post-season.

      @ Evan3457:
      Oh – Chacon pitched well in one start; Nova has an E.R.A. below 4.50 in 8.33 IP; and Kuroda’s only 0-1.

      I stand corrected.

      Chacon, Nova, and Kuroda never won 20 games in a season with the Yankees, did not win a ring with the Yankees – a Pennant or World Series ring, were not acquired in a magor trade, etc.

      Figueroa won three rings with the Yankees? But that’s because Figueroa played with teams that were more lucky than the teams Chacon, Nova, or Kuroda played for over the course of eight years, right?

      As Reggie Jackson once asked himself, “Why am I arguing with someone that can’t read or write?”

    21. Evan3457
      October 6th, 2013 | 4:34 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      The only thing that Figueroa had in common with any starting pitcher Cashman acquired from 2005-13 not named Sabathia is that he did not perform in October?
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Nope.
      Chacon pitched well in his only post-season start for the Yanks.
      Nova pitched well before getting hurt in game 5 of 2011.
      Kuroda pitched well for them in last year’s post-season.
      @ Evan3457:
      Oh – Chacon pitched well in one start; Nova has an E.R.A. below 4.50 in 8.33 IP; and Kuroda’s only 0-1.
      I stand corrected.

      That’s right you are corrected.

      You blow off Chacon. Strike one.
      You cite Nova’s ERA but he’s won a game.
      Kuroda’s ERA is 2.81 in the 2 starts, but they didn’t score for him, so he’s 0-1, so that’s no good.

      So you cite ERA on the pitcher with a win, and you cite W-L on the pitcher with the good ERA. Nifty cherry picking of stats.

      And the original statement was that nobody besides CC had performed in October. Now, move the goalposts and redefine that to mean they never won games.

      You know, when your off-the-cuff remark is proven wrong, it’s not necessary to issue a reflexive rejoinder. It just looks even more wrong.

      Chacon, Nova, and Kuroda never won 20 games in a season with the Yankees, did not win a ring with the Yankees – a Pennant or World Series ring, were not acquired in a magor trade, etc.

      Nowhere near the point of your off-the-cuff remark. Still wrong.

      Figueroa won three rings with the Yankees? But that’s because Figueroa played with teams that were more lucky than the teams Chacon, Nova, or Kuroda played for over the course of eight years, right?

      In some respects, yes, they were, now that you mention it. In other respects, they were better.
      As Reggie Jackson once asked himself, “Why am I arguing with someone that can’t read or write?”

    22. Evan3457
      October 6th, 2013 | 4:34 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      As Reggie Jackson once asked himself, “Why am I arguing with someone that can’t read or write?”

      As opposed to someone who can’t think his way out of a paper bag?

    23. McMillan
      October 6th, 2013 | 5:59 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It’s much more accurate to say that Torrez and Guidry carried the Yanks to the title

      To me, this is a classic example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Guidry and Torrez were horses in the rotation during the 1977 reg. season and the 1977 postseason and then N.Y. won the 1977 World Series, therefore Guidry-Torrez was the most significant reason why N.Y. won the Series. No mathematician or logician would ever let you get away with that – unless starting pitching is most significant (that’s called an enthymeme), or more significant than luck.

      But if starting pitching is most significant, why did N.Y. win nothing from 2005-07 with:

      Shawn Chacon,
      Roger Clemens (age 42),
      Sean Henn,
      Kei Igawa,
      Randy Johnson (age 41-42),
      Al Leiter (age 39),
      Carl Pavano,
      Sidney Ponson,
      Darrell Rasner,
      Aaron Small,
      Javier Vazquez, and
      Jaret Wright?

      And if starting pitching is more significant than luck, then how could the Yankees have played .444 baseball (4-9) from 2005-07? Luck must be more significant.

      It was simply coincidence that N.Y. beat L.A. in 6 games in both the 1977 and 1978 World Series, and that N.Y.’s starting pitchers pitched better in both Series; in 1978: Figueroa, Hunter, Guidry, Beattie (3.82 E.R.A.) pitched better than John, Hooton, Sutton (5.40 E.R.A.).

      The Dodgers were the better team, they just weren’t as lucky as the Yankees for two eight-day periods in 1977 and 1978 respectively; that that luck can not be shown statistically is irrelevant.

    24. Kamieniecki
      October 6th, 2013 | 6:35 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      You blow off Chacon. Strike one.
      You cite Nova’s ERA but he’s won a game.
      Kuroda’s ERA is 2.81 in the 2 starts, but they didn’t score for him, so he’s 0-1, so that’s no good.

      @ Evan3457:
      You’re talking about 5 postseason starts in total for 3 starters, you idiot.

      It’s postseason starting pitching + enough postseason relief pitching + enough postseason hitting + …; it’s not postseason hitting + enough starting postseason pitching + …

    25. Mr. October
      October 6th, 2013 | 8:13 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Shawn Chacon,
      Roger Clemens (age 42),
      Sean Henn,
      Kei Igawa,
      Randy Johnson (age 41-42),
      Al Leiter (age 39),
      Carl Pavano,
      Sidney Ponson,
      Darrell Rasner,
      Aaron Small,
      Javier Vazquez, and
      Jaret Wright?

      @ McMillan:
      You left out:
      Colter Bean,
      Matt DeSalvo, and
      Scott Erickson (age 38).

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And the original statement was that nobody [with more than 3 postseason starts] besides CC had performed in October. Now, move the goalposts and redefine that to mean they never won games.

      @ Evan3457:
      What field are you in, again? Marshmallow sales?

    26. Evan3457
      October 7th, 2013 | 3:11 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      It’s much more accurate to say that Torrez and Guidry carried the Yanks to the title
      To me, this is a classic example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Guidry and Torrez were horses in the rotation during the 1977 reg. season and the 1977 postseason and then N.Y. won the 1977 World Series, therefore Guidry-Torrez was the most significant reason why N.Y. won the Series. No mathematician or logician would ever let you get away with that –
      unless starting pitching is most significant (that’s called an enthymeme), or more significant than luck.

      Um, just plain wrong. The discussion was only about the pitching staff not about the rest of the team. So stuff it.

      But if starting pitching is most significant, why did N.Y. win nothing from 2005-07 with:
      Shawn Chacon,
      Roger Clemens (age 42),
      Sean Henn,
      Kei Igawa,
      Randy Johnson (age 41-42),
      Al Leiter (age 39),
      Carl Pavano,
      Sidney Ponson,
      Darrell Rasner,
      Aaron Small,
      Javier Vazquez, and
      Jaret Wright?
      And if starting pitching is more significant than luck, then how could the Yankees have played .444 baseball (4-9) from 2005-07? Luck must be more significant.

      And all this is now irrelevant, but thanks anyway.

      It was simply coincidence that N.Y. beat L.A. in 6 games in both the 1977 and 1978 World Series, and that N.Y.’s starting pitchers pitched better in both Series; in 1978: Figueroa, Hunter, Guidry, Beattie (3.82 E.R.A.) pitched better than John, Hooton, Sutton (5.40 E.R.A.).
      The Dodgers were the better team, they just weren’t as lucky as the Yankees for two eight-day periods in 1977 and 1978 respectively; that that luck can not be shown statistically is irrelevant.

      Yeah, that’s pretty much right. You got it.
      Match ‘em up. Hunter vs. Sutton, Guidry vs. John. Hooten vs. Figueroa/Beattie. The Dodgers pitchers are as good or better.

    27. Evan3457
      October 7th, 2013 | 3:12 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      You blow off Chacon. Strike one.
      You cite Nova’s ERA but he’s won a game.
      Kuroda’s ERA is 2.81 in the 2 starts, but they didn’t score for him, so he’s 0-1, so that’s no good.
      @ Evan3457:
      You’re talking about 5 postseason starts in total for 3 starters, you idiot.

      You said “any”. You were wrong. Try admitting you were wrong, for once. Or continue to live your life as an arrogant moron.

      It’s postseason starting pitching + enough postseason relief pitching + enough postseason hitting + …; it’s not postseason hitting + enough starting postseason pitching + …

      Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.

    28. Evan3457
      October 7th, 2013 | 3:14 am

      Mr. October wrote:
      What field are you in, again? Marshmallow sales?

      What field are in, village idioting?

      (Don’t bother to correct the grammar.)

    29. Evan3457
      October 7th, 2013 | 3:16 am

      Well, not the leaving out the word “you” part.

    30. Kamieniecki
      October 7th, 2013 | 5:29 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.

      @ Evan3457:
      Assertion without proof, otherwise known as: no proof.

      So far, Las Vegas has the A.L. Champion correct: Boston (2-0), and the N.L. Champion correct: L.A. (2-1), with Kershaw possibly closing it out tonight in L.A.

      2013 A.L.D.S.

      T.B. vs. Boston

      Bos.: 97-65 reg. season record (.599); T.B.: 92-71 record (.564).

      Bos.: 853 runs (1st); T.B.: 700 (9th).
      Bos.: 3.79 E.R.A. (5th); T.B.: 3.74 E.R.A. (4th).

      If Boston scored 25 fewer runs from Apr. to Oct., and won 94 games, and T.B. scored 15 more runs from Apr. to Oct. and won 95 games – Boston defeating T.B. in a best-of-5 series would support a your theory, because T.B. had a higher reg. season WPCT, and wildcard Boston won the series?

      In other words:

      A difference of only 6 games won and not lost, and only 40 runs scored or not scored, in 325 games played can be the difference between a first place team and a wildcard team, and the postseason is “mostly luck” if a wildcard Boston wins, and the postseason is “mostly luck” if a wildcard T.B. wins in either scenario – same teams, same players, right?

      That’s brilliant logic.

      Also:

      Since division series play began (1995), postseason starting (SP) that yielded fewer earned runs (ER) has won 100 out of 126 (80%) postseason series (a higher pct. than the reg. season).

      But if Boston’s postseason SPs yield fewer ERs to T.B.’s lineups than T.B.’s postseason SPs yield to Boston’s lineups, and Boston wins the series, it’s not necessarily true that Boston’s SP was more significant than luck in determining the outcome because an inference that SP is the most important element of postseason success on the basis of the results of 126 postseason series played in the absence of contradicting data is “fallacious,” right?

      O.K…

      Oak. vs. Det.

      Cabrera, the 2012 Triple Crown winner and first person to win the award since 1967, the 2012 A.L. M.V.P. winner, and the presumptive 2013 A.L. M.V.P. Award winner who batted .348 and had 44 HRs and 137 RBIs in 2013, has been playing with a substantial injury in the 2013 A.L.D.S.

      Oak. defeating Det. in a best-of-5 series with Cabrera not a factor due to injury supports a theory that the postseason is “mostly luck,” because “anything can happen in the postseason,” and something did happen – an injury to Cabrera, right?

      O.K…

      With Cabrera injured, Beane requires less (“bleeping”) luck for his $60 million team to defeat Dombrowski’s $160 mil. team than with Cabrera healthy. But Billy Beane still has to beat Hiroki Kuroda and Phil Hughes in Games 4 and 5… Excuse me, I meant Scherzer and Verlander.

      2013 N.L.D.S.

      L.A. vs. Atl.

      Atl.: 96-66 reg. season record (.593); L.A.: 92-70 record (.564).

      Atl.: 688 runs (4th); L.A.: 649 runs (7th).
      Atl.: 3.18 E.R.A. (1st); L.A.: 3.25 E.R.A. (2nd).

      If Atlanta scored 15 fewer runs from Apr. to Oct., and won 93 games, and L.A. scored 20 more runs from Apr. to Oct. and won 94 games – Atlanta defeating L.A. in a best-of-5 series supports your theory that the postseason is a mostly luck, because L.A. would have had the higher reg. season WPCT, and Atlanta won the series?

      In other words:

      A difference of only 5 games won and not lost, and only 35 runs scored or not scored, in 324 games played can be the difference between an outcome of a best-of-5 between two teams supporting or not supporting a theory that the postseason is mostly luck, right?

      O.K…

      And if L.A.’s postseason SPs yield fewer ERs to Atlanta’s lineups than Atlanta’s postseason SPs yield to L.A.’s lineups, and L.A. wins the series, it is not necessarily true that L.A.’s SP – with Kershaw(!) was more significant than luck in determining the outcome because an inference that postseason SP is the most important element of postseason success on the basis of the results of 126 postseason series played in the absence of contradicting data is “fallacious,” right?

      O.K…

      Moving on…

      Pit. vs. St. L.

      St. L.: 97-65 reg. season record (.599); Pit.: 94-68 record (.580).

      St. L.: 783 runs (1st); Pit.: 634 runs (9th).

      If St. L. scored 10 fewer runs from Apr. to Oct., and won 95 games, and Pit. had scored 10 runs more from Apr. to Oct. and won 96 games – St. L. defeating Pit. in a best-of-five series would support a theory that the postseason is a crapshoot, because Pit. had the better reg. season WPCT and a wildcard (St. L.) won?

      A difference of only 4 games won and not lost, and only 10 runs scored or not scored, in 324 games played can be the difference between a first place team and a wildcard team, and makes the postseason a mosly luck if a wildcard St. L. wins, and the postseason mostly luck if a wildcard Atlanta wins in either scenario – same teams, same players, right?

      This all makes perfect sense…

      And the performances of Beltran and Burnett in this series so far has been unpredictable too, right?

      And all of this nonsense somehow supports an argument that the N.Y. Yankees’ 25-26 postseason record over NINE YEARS with the $200-36 mil. payrolls in each season is not unreasonable because the postseason is a crapshoot, right?

      Thanks… I think I got it now.

    31. McMillan
      October 7th, 2013 | 7:08 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Yeah, that’s pretty much right. You got it.
      Match ‘em up. Hunter vs. Sutton, Guidry vs. John. Hooten vs. Figueroa/Beattie. The Dodgers pitchers are as good or better.

      That’s right: I forgot Burt “Happy” Hooten was part of those great Dodger postseason rotations.

      Munson, Jackson, Piniella, Nettles, Guidry, Hunter, Lyle, Gossage, et al were damn lucky to win one Series, much less two.

      Cashman might invite Hooten to camp in the Spring, 2014 – why not: he’s only 63. It’s doesn’t matter if he’s old; it only matters if he’s good.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Oak. defeating Det. in a best-of-5 series with Cabrera not a factor due to injury supports a theory that the postseason is “mostly luck,” because “anything can happen in the postseason,” and something did happen – an injury to Cabrera, right?

      Wrong. Oakland beating Boston in a postseason series is not “evidence” the postseason is “mostly luck” – the fact that a Triple Crown winner and reigning M.V.P. is injured is still immaterial: but the team with the higher WPCT won – we don’t want that result, because it means Cashman’s teams should have won more in October from 2005-12. We want Detroit to win, because that would show the postseason is mostly luck.

      … But Detroit is favored, and if Detroit wins, that would necessarily mean the postseason is predictable, and we don’t want that either, because that also mean the postseason is not mostly luck and Cashman’s teams should have won more in October…

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan,

      I’m confused: which represents more “evidence” Cashman’s done a great job winning one pennant since 2005 with only $2.0-2.5MMM (billion) spent: Detroit winning, or Detroit losing?

      That is, the team that has the higher regular season WPCT, or the team that’s favored? Two of your “main” arguments would appear to be in conflict: What if they’re not the same team?

      Shouldn’t the team with the highest regular season WPCT always be favored? If not, then how does the fact that only three teams with the highest WPCT have won the World Series since 1995 prove the postseason is “mostly luck?”

      @ Raf:
      Maybe Raf knows… Raf?

    32. Mr. October
      October 7th, 2013 | 10:01 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      What field are in, village idioting?

      @ Evan3457:
      I are in the education field; I teach formal logic.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Oak. defeating Det. in a best-of-5 series with Cabrera not a factor due to injury supports a theory that the postseason is “mostly luck,” because “anything can happen in the postseason,” and something did happen – an injury to Cabrera, right?

      Did Cashman lose his best position player in every postseason from 2005-2012?

      McMillan wrote:

      Shouldn’t the team with the highest regular season WPCT always be favored? If not, then how does the fact that only three teams with the highest WPCT have won the World Series since 1995 prove the postseason is “mostly luck?”

      @ McMillan:
      It might be because Las Vegas understands regular season WPCT is meaningless. The Tribe and the Dodgers had the worst regular season WPCT (.568) in the tournament, and the Dodgers were favored to win it all; the Indians not.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.