• Cashman Doesn’t Have Time For Stupid Questions

    Posted by on December 18th, 2013 · Comments (55)

    The story via Wally Matthews

    And yet, here we are, on Dec. 18, and the [Carlos Beltran] deal is not officially done.

    I called GM Brian Cashman this morning to ask what was up and was somewhat surprised by his response: “There are terms to do, physicals to take, items to be worked out when you do a contract … There’s no scoop here. Nothing’s falling apart. I don’t have time to deal with stupid questions like this.”

    Funny, I never implied, or thought, that anything was “falling apart,” just was looking for a heads up as to when the next rollout news conference might be. If that was a stupid question, I plead guilty. But the GM’s response seemed just a tad, well, over the top. Seems as if it would have been just as easy to say, “No biggie, we’re just working out some details but it’s going to get done.”

    That would have settled the matter. The way he responded only unsettled it, at least in my mind.

    For the moment, let’s take Cashman at his word, that the delay in announcing the Beltran signing is perfectly routine.

    But if, just if, the deal winds up “falling apart” — his words, not mine — this conversation will have turned out to be prophetic.

    …I don’t have time to deal with stupid questions like this…

    I bet, if it were Erin Andrews asking the question, then Cash would find the time.

    Comments on Cashman Doesn’t Have Time For Stupid Questions

    1. hallofamer2000
      December 19th, 2013 | 12:05 am

      It’s a 40 man roster thing. Cash is trying to pool a few prospects from the 40 together to add a piece for the big club. The 40 is tight right now and he doesn’t want to risk losing a few guys. He’s also likely trying to see if he can find a taker for Ichiro.

    2. Evan3457
      December 19th, 2013 | 12:38 am

      Oh, it’s Wally “crapbird” Matthews.

      Next.

    3. December 19th, 2013 | 12:40 am

      Who would take Ichiro, where Ichiro would agree to go? Signing him for 2-years was another stupid Cashman move.

      As far as the 40, Geez, cut Vernon Wells and be done with it. There’s your spot for Beltran.

    4. McMillan
      December 19th, 2013 | 2:00 am

      Cashman has a lot to deal with: the retirement of Pettitte and Rivera, the worst starting rotation this team has had since 1992, a payroll that is not the highest in M.L.B. for the first time in his 16-year tenure as General Manager, women demanding $6,000.00 for medical procedures, etc…

    5. Kamieniecki
      December 19th, 2013 | 2:36 am

      What guys are Cashman worried about losing? Are there 40 guys worth worrying about in his entire system?

    6. redbug
      December 19th, 2013 | 6:55 am

      Matthews isn’t the only one wondering. I’ve seen a couple of others questioning the same thing.

    7. EHawk
      December 19th, 2013 | 12:56 pm

      Thought the press conference was on Friday this week? I read Beltran was traveling and that was the hold up but he passed his physical already.

    8. December 19th, 2013 | 2:50 pm

      The Yankees announced it today. I guess Wally got through to the thin-skinned GM.

    9. Mr. October
      December 19th, 2013 | 9:16 pm

      Matthews should ask the thin-skinned GM what he is going to do to upgrade one of the weakest rotations in the AL now, in the wake of today’s reports that Masahiro Tanaka will not be posted? Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia aren’t available. Or maybe Matthews should have Erin Andrews ask him…

    10. McMillan
      December 19th, 2013 | 9:35 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Matthews should ask the thin-skinned GM what he is going to do to upgrade one of the weakest rotations in the AL now, in the wake of today’s reports that Masahiro Tanaka will not be posted?

      This is how a $3 million-per-year executive with a B.A. from Catholic University might answer that question:

      “I’d rather go the easier route and pull something down that someone’s like, ‘Good move,’ but I don’t know if that’s going to happen. I might have to go the harder, longer route. We’ll see.”

      If George M. Steinbrenner III can hear me:
      “Mr. Steinbrenner, like ‘good move’ making this idiot the G.M. of this organization in 1998… it might be less than ten years from today that the seven Steinbrenner World Series championships won since 1973 will be eclipsed in Boston – all after 2004.”

    11. Kamieniecki
      December 19th, 2013 | 9:55 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      “‘I might have to go the harder, longer route,’ Cashman said.”

      The last time Cashman went the harder, longer route, two marriages were destroyed.

      “… Brian Cashman said during the Winter Meetings that ‘non-roster invitees might be the key,’ as the team doesn’t appear interested enough in free agents such as Santana, Garza or Jimenez…” “Non-roster invitees” – this is the starting rotation of a team with the second highest payroll in baseball, not the bench… What a disgrace.

    12. Evan3457
      December 19th, 2013 | 11:47 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Who would take Ichiro, where Ichiro would agree to go? Signing him for 2-years was another stupid Cashman move.
      As far as the 40, Geez, cut Vernon Wells and be done with it. There’s your spot for Beltran.

      The 2 year deal for Ichiro came from above Cashman.

      River Ave Blues on November 5:

      Unfortunately, we’re all going to get a look at Act Four in 2014. Ownership signed Ichiro to a two-year contract (!!!) and pending the team’s offseason moves, he is currently slated to open next season as the regular-ish right fielder.

    13. Evan3457
      December 19th, 2013 | 11:50 pm

      Backed up by this Joel Sherman piece:

      Last offseason, he advised ownership to re-sign Russell Martin and ink free agent Nate Schierholtz, and was against the re-signing of Ichiro Suzuki.

      http://nypost.com/2013/07/27/cashman-anti-trade-overruled-again/

      Cashman could be the source on that piece, and self-serving. It’s possible, but we’ll never know for sure.

    14. Kamieniecki
      December 20th, 2013 | 6:51 pm

      Why didn’t Brian “Baseball Is The Only Thing I Know” Cashman decline the $10.25 million option of one of the worst postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Nick Swisher, and sign one of the best postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Carlos Beltran, when Cashman had the opportunity to do so in the 2011-12 offseason?

    15. Mr. October
      December 20th, 2013 | 7:17 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Why didn’t Brian “Baseball Is The Only Thing I Know” Cashman decline the $10.25 million option of one of the worst postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Nick Swisher, and sign one of the best postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Carlos Beltran, when Cashman had the opportunity to do so in the 2011-12 offseason?

      Jack Curry never suggested it to Cashman.

    16. McMillan
      December 20th, 2013 | 7:40 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Why didn’t Brian “Baseball Is The Only Thing I Know” Cashman decline the $10.25 million option of one of the worst postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Nick Swisher, and sign one of the best postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Carlos Beltran, when Cashman had the opportunity to do so in the 2011-12 offseason?

      … And the reason the team lost to Detroit in 2012 was because the lineup “got cold,” not because the lineup was not built to win on October by an idiot masquerading as an M.L.B. G.M., and not because of three pitchers named Verlander, Scherzer, and Sanchez.

    17. McMillan
      December 20th, 2013 | 8:14 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The 2 year deal for Ichiro came from above Cashman.

      Someone 5’4″?

    18. Evan3457
      December 20th, 2013 | 9:22 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      Why didn’t Brian “Baseball Is The Only Thing I Know” Cashman decline the $10.25 million option of one of the worst postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Nick Swisher, and sign one of the best postseason hitters in M.L.B. history, right fielder Carlos Beltran, when Cashman had the opportunity to do so in the 2011-12 offseason?
      … And the reason the team lost to Detroit in 2012 was because the lineup “got cold,” not because the lineup was not built to win on October by an idiot masquerading as an M.L.B. G.M., and not because of three pitchers named Verlander, Scherzer, and Sanchez.

      …who then got swept by an awesome Giants’ team. (Tigers’ starters ERA…4.11).

    19. Evan3457
      December 20th, 2013 | 9:23 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The 2 year deal for Ichiro came from above Cashman.
      Someone 5’4″?

      Is Hal 5’4″?

    20. McMillan
      December 20th, 2013 | 9:40 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Is Hal 5’4″?

      It was my intention to write “Someone 5’4″ or more, and neglected to. But I did mean well.

    21. Kamieniecki
      December 20th, 2013 | 9:50 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      …who then got swept by an awesome Giants’ team. (Tigers’ starters ERA…4.11).

      @ Evan3457:
      A village in Connecticut called – they’re missing an idiot. Are you from Connecticut, or could it be someone in the Yankees’ front office?

    22. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2013 | 2:10 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      …who then got swept by an awesome Giants’ team. (Tigers’ starters ERA…4.11).
      @ Evan3457:
      A village in Connecticut called – they’re missing an idiot. Are you from Connecticut, or could it be someone in the Yankees’ front office?

      If the shoes fit…
      http://img.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/ellie/121Clown-Mens-Multicolor-Clown-Shoes-large.jpg

    23. Kamieniecki
      December 21st, 2013 | 9:32 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      …who then got swept by an awesome Giants’ team. (Tigers’ starters ERA…4.11).

      @ Evan3457:

      When a more substantial pct. of postseason games are determined in innings 7-9, or extra innings, and a more substantial pct. of postseason series are played to elimination games – i.e. fewer postseason series resemble the 2012 World Series in which S.F. pitching matched up better against Detroit’s lineup than Det. pitching matched up against San Francisco’s lineup, then you might have an argument…

      Weren’t you working on some Doomsday argument in your basement that was going to prove that the postseason is “mostly luck,” and which was “almost ready” a few months ago? What happened with the Manhattan Project?

    24. McMillan
      December 21st, 2013 | 10:19 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Weren’t you working on some Doomsday argument in your basement that was going to prove that the postseason is “mostly luck,” and which was “almost ready” a few months ago? What happened with the Manhattan Project?

      @ Kamieniecki:
      A compilation of Evan’s failed attempts to build a doomsday argument to support his Oct., 2011 contention on this site that the postseason is a crapshoot:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McbCwSW2moo

      @ Evan3457:

    25. Kamieniecki
      December 21st, 2013 | 10:32 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      A compilation of Evan’s failed attempts to build a doomsday argument to support his Oct., 2011 contention on this site that the postseason is a crapshoot:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McbCwSW2moo

      @ McMillan:
      Evan3457′s grandfather tried to argue that the Black Sox Scandal, and the fixing of the 1919 World Series, was not a big deal, because “the World Series is a crapshoot anyway…”

    26. Mr. October
      December 22nd, 2013 | 6:53 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      A compilation of Evan’s failed attempts to build a doomsday argument to support his Oct., 2011 contention on this site that the postseason is a crapshoot:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McbCwSW2moo

      Evan von Braun. There’s gotta to be a place in quantitative analysis for him with the Yankees.

    27. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:17 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      …who then got swept by an awesome Giants’ team. (Tigers’ starters ERA…4.11).

      @ Evan3457:
      Black Knight,

      I don’t have access to a database like the one behind BaseballReference.com – if I did, I could write so many complex queries, hour after hour, day after day, that would blow your October 2011 post so far out of the water, it’s ridiculous…

      Either way, until one of Billy Beane’s $50 million teams somehow manages to win two consecutive postseason series – at least, you don’t have a leg to stand on:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

    28. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:30 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      …who then got swept by an awesome Giants’ team. (Tigers’ starters ERA…4.11).
      @ Evan3457:
      When a more substantial pct. of postseason games are determined in innings 7-9, or extra innings, and a more substantial pct. of postseason series are played to elimination games – i.e. fewer postseason series resemble the 2012 World Series in which S.F. pitching matched up better against Detroit’s lineup than Det. pitching matched up against San Francisco’s lineup, then you might have an argument…
      Weren’t you working on some Doomsday argument in your basement that was going to prove that the postseason is “mostly luck,” and which was “almost ready” a few months ago? What happened with the Manhattan Project?

      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.

      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results to beclown you, which they did. The best hitting teams in each league (measured by both runs scored and OPS+) won both Championship Series, and then, in the World Series, the best hitting team in baseball won it all.

      That you choose not to recognize your beclowing means nothing to anyone else but you.

    29. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:31 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      Weren’t you working on some Doomsday argument in your basement that was going to prove that the postseason is “mostly luck,” and which was “almost ready” a few months ago? What happened with the Manhattan Project?
      @ Kamieniecki:
      A compilation of Evan’s failed attempts to build a doomsday argument to support his Oct., 2011 contention on this site that the postseason is a crapshoot:

      Says one of Sybil’s personas to another.

      http://paperfashion.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/clown_shoes.jpg?w=778

    30. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:32 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      A compilation of Evan’s failed attempts to build a doomsday argument to support his Oct., 2011 contention on this site that the postseason is a crapshoot:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McbCwSW2moo
      Evan von Braun. There’s gotta to be a place in quantitative analysis for him with the Yankees.

      Says a 3rd Sybil “identity” to the other two.
      http://www.masks-wigs-and-costumes.com/Clown_Novelties/images/clown_shoes_red_pokka_dots.jpg

    31. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:34 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      …who then got swept by an awesome Giants’ team. (Tigers’ starters ERA…4.11).
      @ Evan3457:
      Black Knight,
      I don’t have access to a database like the one behind BaseballReference.com – if I did, I could write so many complex queries, hour after hour, day after day, that would blow your October 2011 post so far out of the water, it’s ridiculous…
      Either way, until one of Billy Beane’s $50 million teams somehow manages to win two consecutive postseason series – at least, you don’t have a leg to stand on:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

      I’ve already won the argument this past post-season.
      That none of the “six” of you recongnize that qualifies you for…
      http://www.bestmascot.com/clownshoes6.jpg

    32. Kamieniecki
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:36 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      How did teams with league-average pitching do, genius?

    33. Kamieniecki
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:41 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      How did teams with league-average pitching do, genius?

      @ Evan3457:
      Better yet: and since 1969?

    34. Mr. October
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:52 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The best hitting teams in each league (measured by both runs scored and OPS+) won both Championship Series…

      @ Evan3457:
      What happened with Team Cashman from 2005-07, and 2010-12?

    35. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 8:00 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      How did teams with league-average pitching do, genius?
      @ Evan3457:
      Better yet: and since 1969?

      Wha happen? Your other five “friends” too busy to support “Kamieniecki”?
      http://www.clownsupplies.com/CatalogImages/CLOWNSHOES%20Red.jpg

    36. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 8:01 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      How did teams with league-average pitching do, genius?

      The 2009 Yankees won it all with the best offsense in the league, and finished 7th in league ERA.

    37. Kamieniecki
      December 22nd, 2013 | 9:17 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.
      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results…

      @ Evan3457:
      Do you even realize how stupid this statement is? There is postseason data going back to 1969, but your “argument” that “Billy Beane was right” was the 2011 Cardinals, and you had to “wait” for the 2013 Boston Red Sox to support it?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The 2009 Yankees won it all with the best offsense in the league, and finished 7th in league ERA.

      The 2009 Yankees did not finish 7th in league E.R.A., genius.

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2009.shtml

    38. Mr. October
      December 22nd, 2013 | 9:44 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.
      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results

      In other words, you had no argument. The results of one post-season doesn’t invalidate the results of over 100 post-seasons, one way or the other.

    39. PHMDen
      December 22nd, 2013 | 10:12 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.
      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results

      I find that hard to believe. If you were waiting for results of some kind, why not just say that? IIRC, you said you were “working on” something “just about ready.”

    40. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2013 | 11:36 pm

      @ Evan3457:

      I don’t have access to a database like the one behind BaseballReference.com – if I did, I could write so many complex queries, hour after hour, day after day, that would blow your October, 2011 post so far out of the water, it’s ridiculous…

      Either way, until one of The Great Billy Beane’s $50 million teams somehow manages to win two consecutive postseason series…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eXFxttxeaA

      Don’t **** with me again, Pyle3457.

    41. Sweet Lou
      December 23rd, 2013 | 9:12 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The 2009 Yankees won it all with the best offsense in the league, and finished 7th in league ERA.

      @ Evan3457:
      The 2009 Yankees won it all with the best offense in the AL, and finished 3rd in the AL in ERA, not 7th.

      A more relevant question is always, “how did the pitchers on the Yankees’ playoff staff rank against pitchers on other AL playoff staffs?” Take the #4 and #5 starters out of the equation; it’s still a simplistic approach, but better than just looking at reg. season totals. And, fyi, Mariano skewed the numbers to some extent, too.

      PHMDen wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      I find that hard to believe. If you were waiting for results of some kind, why not just say that?

      That is strange.

    42. Kamieniecki
      December 23rd, 2013 | 10:10 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.
      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results

      @ Evan3457:
      Liar3457,

      If you can save me the time of locating that specific quote you posted Aug.-Sep., 2013, and provide a quote that can reasonably be interpreted to mean that you were waiting on actual 2013 post-season results, and not working on a Mother Of All Arguments – and it’s link, then I’ll send waswatching.com a check that can be made payable to your favorite charity…

      It was your post that was allegedly misinterpreted… you should be able to find it more quickly than anyone else…

    43. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:11 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Do you even realize how stupid this statement is? There is postseason data going back to 1969, but your “argument” that “Billy Beane was right” was the 2011 Cardinals, and you had to “wait” for the 2013 Boston Red Sox to support it?

      Do you even realize how stupid this response is?
      Reality chumped your argument. Argument over.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      The 2009 Yankees won it all with the best offsense in the league, and finished 7th in league ERA.
      The 2009 Yankees did not finish 7th in league E.R.A., genius.
      http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2009.shtml

      7th in runs allowed per game.

    44. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:12 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.
      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results
      In other words, you had no argument. The results of one post-season doesn’t invalidate the results of over 100 post-seasons, one way or the other.

      But your “results” are reasoning from the result and have no predictive value on whether the post-season is predictable.

      You predicted it, and got chumped.

    45. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:13 am

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.
      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results
      I find that hard to believe. If you were waiting for results of some kind, why not just say that? IIRC, you said you were “working on” something “just about ready.”

      I don’t think I said those words.
      However, you can go find them, like you always do, when you need to win an argument nobody’s arguing any more.

    46. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:14 am

      McMillan wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      I don’t have access to a database like the one behind BaseballReference.com – if I did, I could write so many complex queries, hour after hour, day after day, that would blow your October, 2011 post so far out of the water, it’s ridiculous…
      Either way, until one of The Great Billy Beane’s $50 million teams somehow manages to win two consecutive postseason series…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eXFxttxeaA
      Don’t **** with me again, Pyle3457.

      LOL.
      Who needs to **** with you? You’re forever ****ing yourself.
      http://www.unitedmask.com/Clown_Novelties/images/clown_shoes_black_white_yellow_red_bows.JPG

    47. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:20 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      No, that was your interpretation of what I was saying.
      It was wrong as usual.
      What I was waiting for was for the actual post-season results
      @ Evan3457:
      Liar3457,

      The only proven liar here is you.

      If you can save me the time of locating that specific quote you posted Aug.-Sep., 2013, and provide a quote that can reasonably be interpreted to mean that you were waiting on actual 2013 post-season results, and not working on a Mother Of All Arguments – and it’s link, then I’ll send waswatching.com a check that can be made payable to your favorite charity…
      It was your post that was allegedly misinterpreted… you should be able to find it more quickly than anyone else…

      Since I know you waste hours looking up arguments going back 3, 4 years ago and more, I’m sure if I ever said I was preparing the “Mother of All Arguments”, or anything like that, you’d have found it by now.

      It doesn’t exist. I can’t help it if you misinterpreted what I was saying. Not my problem. Yours. Among many.

    48. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:21 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      Do you even realize how stupid this statement is? There is postseason data going back to 1969, but your “argument” that “Billy Beane was right” was the 2011 Cardinals, and you had to “wait” for the 2013 Boston Red Sox to support it?
      Do you even realize how stupid this response is?
      Reality chumped your argument. Argument over.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      The 2009 Yankees won it all with the best offsense in the league, and finished 7th in league ERA.
      The 2009 Yankees did not finish 7th in league E.R.A., genius.
      http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2009.shtml
      7th in runs allowed per game.

      Oh, and it wasn’t the 2011 Cardinals. It was the 2006 Cardinals.
      And all the other upset winners of the post-season tournament.

    49. Kamieniecki
      December 24th, 2013 | 9:09 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, and it wasn’t the 2011 Cardinals.

      @ Evan3457:
      I know your own posts better than you, chump: http://waswatching.com/2011/10/28/congrats-to-the-st-louis-cardinals/

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Do you even realize how stupid this statement is…

      I guess not…

    50. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 2:59 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oh, and it wasn’t the 2011 Cardinals.
      @ Evan3457:
      I know your own posts better than you, chump: http://waswatching.com/2011/10/28/congrats-to-the-st-louis-cardinals/
      Kamieniecki wrote:
      @ Evan3457:
      Do you even realize how stupid this statement is…
      I guess not…

      Stupid misuse of the quote on your part.
      That statement was made in the thread regarding the 2011 St. Louis Cards, but it was about Cashman’s record as a whole.

      The 2006 Cards are the classic case of “postseason is a crapshoot”, and the one I cite all the time.

      So, no, you really don’t know anything. Much less what I say.

    51. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 2:59 pm
    52. Kamieniecki
      December 27th, 2013 | 7:30 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The 2006 Cards are the classic case of “postseason is a crapshoot”, and the one I cite all the time.

      @ Evan3457:
      Pitching is what wins, or loses, in the postseason. Do you have any statistics to refute this? A quote of Billy Bean is not a statistic. “The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals” is not a statistic.

      The “brutal facts” that the three of you “can’t get away from:” 1. from 1995-2013, nos.1-3 starters as a whole have a lower E.R.A. in the postseason than nos. 4-5 starters as a whole in the postseason, by more than 1 earned run per 9 innings; and 2. from 1995-2013, teams have won 83.75% of all postseason series played with starting pitchers yielding fewer earned runs on average than opposing starters.

      If pitching is “slightly” more significant” than hitting, then the E.R.A. differential between nos. 1-3 starters and nos. 4-5 starters in the postseason would be small; and if the postseason is “mostly luck,” the 83.75% number would be lower…

      A team can be better-built to win in Oct. in general, or against another team in Oct. in particular, and have fewer reg. season wins than all playoff teams in the A.L. or N.L. – it’s about how well teams match up against each other in the regular season and in Oct. – the more nos. 1-2 caliber starting pitchers a team has, the more teams it will match up better against, and the more postseason series it will win in the long-term.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      That statement was made in the thread regarding the 2011 St. Louis Cards, but it was about Cashman’s record as a whole.

      If you want to prove to everyone that you can argue that Team Cashman should not necessarily have been expected to win more than only five postseason series (5/11), or only one A.L. pennant, from 2005-13 with postseason rotations with better pitching than Brown, Johnson, Burnett, Hughes, etc. (it was “mostly bad luck”), then you’ll have to get back to work on the Mother Of All Arguments you threatened the world with in Jul.-Aug., 2013.

    53. McMillan
      December 27th, 2013 | 8:05 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      … from 1995-2013, nos.1-3 starters as a whole have a lower E.R.A. in the postseason than nos. 4-5 starters as a whole in the postseason, by more than 1 earned run per 9 innings…

      Evan3457 wrote:


      You cannot aggregate statistics for nos. 1-3 starters, and nos. 4-5 starters, for a period of eighteen years for purposes of analysis – no mathematician or logician would ever let you get away with that… I can not offer an explanation as to why or why not, because I’m neither a mathematician nor a logician, but I know that neither would…

      Kamieniecki wrote:


      … and if the postseason is “mostly luck,” the 83.75% number would be lower…

      Evan3457 wrote:


      “… The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals… The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals… The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals… The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals… The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals… The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals…”

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      … A team can be better-built to win in Oct. in general, or against another team in Oct. in particular, and have fewer reg. season wins than all playoff teams in the A.L. or N.L. – it’s about how well teams match up against each other in the regular season and in Oct. – the more nos. 1-2 caliber starting pitchers a team has, the more teams it will match up better against, and the more postseason series it will win in the long-term.

      Evan3457 wrote:


      “… My main argument has inductive support from Billy Beane on page 78 of Moneyball… Admit defeat!”

      You can’t argue with The Black Knight…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

    54. Evan3457
      December 28th, 2013 | 3:19 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Pitching is what wins.

      …same nonsense that I’ve already refuted over and over…

      A team can be better-built to win in Oct. in general, or against another team in Oct. in particular, and have fewer reg. season wins than all playoff teams in the A.L. or N.L. – it’s about how well teams match up against each other in the regular season and in Oct.

      Oh, so now matchups matter? 1st time you’ve made that argument. That argument has some validity.

      – the more nos. 1-2 caliber starting pitchers a team has, the more teams it will match up better against, and the more postseason series it will win in the long-term.

      …as the Mulder/Zito/Hudson A’s proved repeatedly. And even if that were true, they still might not win many titles, as the Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz Braves proved.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      If you want to prove to everyone that you can argue that Team Cashman should not necessarily have been expected to win more than only five postseason series (5/11), or only one A.L. pennant, from 2005-13 with postseason rotations with better pitching than Brown, Johnson, Burnett, Hughes, etc. (it was “mostly bad luck”), then you’ll have to get back to work on the Mother Of All Arguments you threatened the world with in Jul.-Aug., 2013.

      Never said “Mother of All Arguements”. Your insipid interpretation.
      The post-season of 2013 is my arguments, and it chumped you.

    55. Evan3457
      December 28th, 2013 | 3:22 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      You can’t argue with The Black Knight…
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

      As you are much more Black Knight that me, Sybil (in pretending your argument wasn’t gutted by the 2013 post-season in which the teams that were 6th and 5th in the league in ERA, respectively, won their pennants), you’ve won yet another…
      http://images.celebrateexpress.com/mgen/merchandiser/82517.jpg?zm=1600,1600,1,0,0

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.