• Rany Jazayerli’s “The New (Yankees) Normal”

    Posted by on December 18th, 2013 · Comments (76)

    This is a must read for all Yankees fans. He nails it.

    Comments on Rany Jazayerli’s “The New (Yankees) Normal”

    1. MJ Recanati
      December 18th, 2013 | 10:21 am

      He really doesn’t nail it. Tons of flaws in the arguments he makes, and pretty disingenuous too. I’d FJM it but it would take too long.

      I don’t disagree with the overall premise that the 2014 team appears to have several flaws and that the owner’s waffling between the $189M plan and free spending is a real impediment to long-term roster building but the devil is always in the details and Jazayerli gets most of them wrong (whether intentionally because it makes for a nice story or unintentionally because ESPN isn’t keen on fact-checking).

    2. tanzo
      December 18th, 2013 | 11:51 am

      One of the keywords he uses is “let”. The Yankees “let” cano go,”let” Martin go.

      I believe that Cano and Martin chose to leave because they wanted more money or more years. This same writer would be blasting the Yankees for signing Cano for 10 when everyone know that he would not be able to play second base at 42. I think the Yankees made a wise choice in not going to 10 years. The same as Martin. If you look at his stats, they were worse this year than the last year with the Yankees. The pirates played him at third at the beginning of the season because how bad he was playing. There is no way of knowing how the team would have done with tex and jeter and granderson and cervelli and A-Rod and hefner healthy all season. Plus if CC was his old self. Next season already is better because Tex and Jeter and Cervelli will be healthy and hopefully produce more than last year.

    3. ahrmon
      December 18th, 2013 | 2:52 pm

      That’s a terrible read, and the amount of wilful ignorance and specious reasoning he used is almost unfathomable. Wowsers.

    4. McMillan
      December 18th, 2013 | 8:42 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I’d FJM it but it would take too long.

      I’d love to see you try.

    5. Kamieniecki
      December 18th, 2013 | 9:02 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I don’t disagree with the overall premise that the 2014 team appears to have several flaws…

      Agreed. The 2014 team appears to have much more than several flaws.

    6. Mr. October
      December 18th, 2013 | 9:56 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      ESPN isn’t keen on fact-checking…

      “… Sabathia is 33 years old, and his average fastball velocity has dropped from 93.9 mph in 2011, to 92.4 in 2012, to 91.3 in 2013… his days as an ace may be over. [Kuroda will] be 39 this coming season and posted a 5.40 ERA in August and September. Pettitte is retired… the last two slots in the rotation will tentatively go to [Phelps and Pineda]…”

      Which, if any, of these facts are incorrect?

      “… That’s the main question with Ellsbury, though: How can we reconcile the player who hit 32 homers in 2011 with the player who hasn’t reached double-digit home runs in any other season? It wasn’t just homers, either; he hit 46 doubles that year, but has no more than 31 in any other season…”

      Great question.

    7. Evan3457
      December 19th, 2013 | 12:29 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      MJ Recanati wrote:
      ESPN isn’t keen on fact-checking…
      “… Sabathia is 33 years old, and his average fastball velocity has dropped from 93.9 mph in 2011, to 92.4 in 2012, to 91.3 in 2013… his days as an ace may be over. [Kuroda will] be 39 this coming season and posted a 5.40 ERA in August and September. Pettitte is retired… the last two slots in the rotation will tentatively go to [Phelps and Pineda]…”
      Which, if any, of these facts are incorrect?
      “… That’s the main question with Ellsbury, though: How can we reconcile the player who hit 32 homers in 2011 with the player who hasn’t reached double-digit home runs in any other season? It wasn’t just homers, either; he hit 46 doubles that year, but has no more than 31 in any other season…”
      Great question.

      He doesn’t have to hit with that kind of power to be very valuable. He was 5.8 WAR at both Bref and Fangraphs last year, and his marginal value last season was $28.9 million (Fangraphs). If he gets any decent power pickup from playing in Yankee Stadium, that’ll offset a decline in BAVG, which was almost exactly the same in 2013 as his career mark.

    8. Mr. October
      December 19th, 2013 | 12:42 am

      “… In 1998, Boston won 92 games… and finished 22 games behind the New York Yankees, who won 114. That was the first of eight consecutive seasons in which the Red Sox finished second in the AL East [behind the Yankees]…. The Sox disrupted the natural order [in 2007] winning the division for the first time since 1995…”

      What happened from 2005-07? Was more autonomy or control of the New York Yankees’ baseball operations department assigned or granted to some idiot within the organization within that timeframe?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/sports/baseball/28cashman.html?_r=0

    9. Kamieniecki
      December 19th, 2013 | 1:08 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I don’t see any bad news [with the Yankees' possible abandonment of the $189 million payroll plan]. Either the so-called austerity plan continues, and allows the Yankees to reset their luxury tax rate from 50% down to 17% or the plan to get under $189M is scrapped and the Yankees go back to aggressively pursuing talent on the open market.
      If the former, there is nothing that would restrict the Yankees from being aggressive spenders in 2015 or 2016. If the latter, it’s merely status quo from 1973-present.

      “… It wasn’t so long ago that the free-agent market was teeming with star players in their primes… But the dramatic increase in revenue throughout the game has made it possible for even small-market teams to sign their best young players to long-term deals well before those players reach free agency, meaning that by the time they do hit the open market, they’re in their early 30s and declining instead of being in their late 20s and peaking… There simply won’t be enough talent available via free agency to replenish the Yankees’ needs.”

    10. McMillan
      December 19th, 2013 | 3:02 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      He was 5.8 WAR at both Bref and Fangraphs last year, and his marginal value last season was $28.9 million (Fangraphs). If he gets any decent power pickup from playing in Yankee Stadium, that’ll offset a decline in BAVG, which was almost exactly the same in 2013 as his career mark.

      “Blah, blah, blah…” Yeah, this guy was a bargain at 7-8 years, and $153-69 million…

    11. LMJ229
      December 19th, 2013 | 10:01 pm

      Cashman disciples love to excuse Cashman’s pathetic draft record with the notion that perennially free spending and winning teams can’t produce prospects. Yet their greatest rivals, the Red Sox, continue to prove them wrong time and again.

    12. Mr. October
      December 19th, 2013 | 10:39 pm

      The Red Sox are able to make excellent draft selections after the first round that contribute to championship teams (not “‘championship-caliber’ teams”), sign home-grown All-Star second basemen in their twenties to nine figure contract extensions for less than $20M per year, etc., because of the exceptional talent they’ve had in the front office.

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Tons of flaws in the arguments he makes, and pretty disingenuous too.

      If it’s not too much trouble, can we have just one example of one of tons of flaws, or just one example of this disingenuousness? Just one example…

    13. Mr. October
      December 19th, 2013 | 10:56 pm

      tanzo wrote:

      The same as Martin.

      Why not sign an AJ Pierzynski for one year in 2012-13 (Pierzynski signed for one year with Texas), and have him share time behind the plate with Cervelli OR Stewart, instead of having Cervelli AND Stewart behind the plate full time, and Travis Hafner DH’ing?

    14. McMillan
      December 19th, 2013 | 10:59 pm

      In some cases it’s discipleship, and in some cases it’s a refusal to admit you’ve been wrong for years – even in the face of a starting rotation of Sabathia, Kuroda, Nova, Phelps, and Nuno.

    15. Evan3457
      December 19th, 2013 | 11:29 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      He was 5.8 WAR at both Bref and Fangraphs last year, and his marginal value last season was $28.9 million (Fangraphs). If he gets any decent power pickup from playing in Yankee Stadium, that’ll offset a decline in BAVG, which was almost exactly the same in 2013 as his career mark.
      “Blah, blah, blah…” Yeah, this guy was a bargain at 7-8 years, and $153-69 million…

      If he plays like he did last year, yes, he is.

      But you’d rather blah, blah, blah than face the reality of the comtemporary player market.

    16. Evan3457
      December 19th, 2013 | 11:31 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      “… In 1998, Boston won 92 games… and finished 22 games behind the New York Yankees, who won 114. That was the first of eight consecutive seasons in which the Red Sox finished second in the AL East [behind the Yankees]…. The Sox disrupted the natural order [in 2007] winning the division for the first time since 1995…”
      What happened from 2005-07? Was more autonomy or control of the New York Yankees’ baseball operations department assigned or granted to some idiot within the organization within that timeframe?
      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/sports/baseball/28cashman.html?_r=0

      What happened was the Red Sox put a terrific organization together and built a multiple title-winner…that then missed the playoffs 4 straight years.

    17. McMillan
      December 20th, 2013 | 7:22 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      What happened was the Red Sox put a terrific organization together and built a multiple title-winner…that then missed the playoffs 4 straight years.

      @ Evan3457:
      I’ll take Boston’s three World Series championships with $160-70 million teams, and you can have Team Cashman’s playoff appearances with $210-30 million teams.

      If I understand correctly, high school math teacher and sometimes teacher of formal logic (who can’t grasp the simple concept of post hoc, ergo propter hoc): playoff appearances “matter,” American League pennants do not “matter,” and World Series championships “matter.”

    18. Mr. October
      December 20th, 2013 | 7:44 pm

      “The culprit in the Yankees’ downfall is mundane…”

      I wouldn’t call Cashman mundane.

      McMillan wrote:

      I’ll take Boston’s three World Series championships with $160-70 million teams, and you can have Team Cashman’s playoff appearances with $210-30 million teams.

      “… The Yankees had the highest average player salary [in 2013] for the 15th consecutive season, at a record $8.17 million…”

    19. Kamieniecki
      December 20th, 2013 | 7:54 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      “Blah, blah, blah…” Yeah, [Ellsbury] was a bargain at 7-8 years, and $153-69 million…

      Evan3457 wrote:

      If he plays like he did last year, yes, he is.
      But you’d rather blah, blah, blah than face the reality of the comtemporary player market.

      @ Evan3457:
      You posted the following comment on Dec. 4, 2013, when a nurse apparently allowed you to log onto the Internet for a few minutes at 12:15 a.m., while all of the other patients were asleep:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Bizarre.

      Too many years, too much money. With [Ellsbury's] injury history, this might tolerable for about 3 years, and then the bottom will drop out.

      http://waswatching.com/2013/12/03/jacoby-ellsbury/

    20. Evan3457
      December 20th, 2013 | 9:44 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      If I understand correctly, high school math teacher and sometimes teacher of formal logic (who can’t grasp the simple concept of post hoc, ergo propter hoc): playoff appearances “matter,” American League pennants do not “matter,” and World Series championships “matter.”

      It seems you can’t grasp far simpler ideas.

      The Championship, in the end, is the only thing that matters.

      Making the playoffs is necessary, because you can’t win the title without first making the playoffs. So making the playoffs matters.

      Once you’ve made the playoffs, you must also win the pennant to win the title, but if all your team does is win the pennant, and not the World Series, that just makes your team the highest-ranking loser of that season. Guess you’re a big fan of losers.

      Nobody cares which team lost the Super Bowl, either, except those teams that have made Super Bowls and never won one, because that represents the closest they’ve ever gotten to being champions. As a Giants fan, I never give a second thought to the 2000 team that got pounded by the Ravens.

      It’s OK for Houston Astros fans to make a big deal over their 2005 team. It’s OK for the Padres to make a big deal out of their 1984 and 1998 teams. As a Yankee fan, winning the pennant is nice, but if they don’t win the title, they’re not champions. I’ll always fondly remember 1976, only because it was the first pennant I saw them win as a fan. That team will also forever be tainted by getting swept by the Reds.

      You want to make a big deal out of pennants, be my guest. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me if the Yanks get knocked out in the first round of the playoffs, the second round, or the third. Any of those, they’re still not champs.

    21. Evan3457
      December 20th, 2013 | 9:46 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      “Blah, blah, blah…” Yeah, [Ellsbury] was a bargain at 7-8 years, and $153-69 million…
      Evan3457 wrote:
      If he plays like he did last year, yes, he is.
      But you’d rather blah, blah, blah than face the reality of the comtemporary player market.
      @ Evan3457:
      You posted the following comment on Dec. 4, 2013, when a nurse apparently allowed you to log onto the Internet for a few minutes at 12:15 a.m., while all of the other patients were asleep:
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Bizarre.
      Too many years, too much money. With [Ellsbury's] injury history, this might tolerable for about 3 years, and then the bottom will drop out.
      http://waswatching.com/2013/12/03/jacoby-ellsbury/

      That’s right, I did.

      Both ideas can be correct at the same time, but that’s another simple idea you can’t grasp.

    22. McMillan
      December 20th, 2013 | 9:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Guess you’re a big fan of losers.

      @ Evan3457:
      If I was, I would have asked for your autograph a long time ago.

    23. McMillan
      December 20th, 2013 | 10:04 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … Making the playoffs is necessary, because you can’t win the title without first making the playoffs. So making the playoffs matters.
      Once you’ve made the playoffs, you must also win the pennant to win the title…

      @ Evan3457:
      Making the playoffs matters, because you can’t win the title without first making the playoffs, but winning the pennant does not matter, even though you can’t win the title without first winning the pennant . You idiiot.

      I guess that why teams have ring ceremonies for winning a pennant or a title…

    24. Kamieniecki
      December 20th, 2013 | 10:06 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Both ideas can be correct at the same time…

      How?

    25. Kamieniecki
      December 20th, 2013 | 10:17 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      That team will also forever be tainted by getting swept by the Reds.

      The 1976 American League Champion New York Yankees are “forever tainted” by losing to the Big Red Machine in the World Series? I’ve never heard that one before. The next time I see Chris Chambliss, I’ve mention that to him.

      There’s a big difference between a team securing a wildcard spot, and a team winning two postseason series and an League Championship. Ask Billy Beane – he’s never done it. And ask Brian Cashman – he’s never done it without spending $423.5M.

    26. Mr. October
      December 20th, 2013 | 10:35 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      it doesn’t matter to me if the Yanks get knocked out in the first round of the playoffs, the second round, or the third. Any of those, they’re still not champs.

      http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130406&content_id=44061360&vkey=pr_det&c_id=det

      How can the Ellsbury contract be too many years, too much money, and a bargain in light of the reality of the comtemporary player market?

    27. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2013 | 2:11 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Guess you’re a big fan of losers.
      @ Evan3457:
      If I was, I would have asked for your autograph a long time ago.

      No need, I’m sure you’ve signed your own name before; just make the usual “X”.

    28. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2013 | 2:13 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      … Making the playoffs is necessary, because you can’t win the title without first making the playoffs. So making the playoffs matters.
      Once you’ve made the playoffs, you must also win the pennant to win the title…
      @ Evan3457:
      Making the playoffs matters, because you can’t win the title without first making the playoffs, but winning the pennant does not matter, even though you can’t win the title without first winning the pennant . You idiiot.
      I guess that why teams have ring ceremonies for winning a pennant or a title…

      …and that’s the whole point of playing the season, to have a ring ceremony. That’s why both teams are jumping all over each other after the World Series is over, because both teams know they’re getting a ring next April.

      If the shoes fit, Sybil…
      http://www.clownshoes.net/clownshoes.gif

    29. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2013 | 2:15 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Both ideas can be correct at the same time…
      How?

      Because if he plays as he did last year, he’s worth about 6 WAR, which has a marginal value of about $30 million, which is MORE than the Yankees will pay him.

      The other half is that with his injury history, he’s not likely to do this for more than 2-3 years of his contract.

      See? He can still be a valuable player for the Yankees, at least for part of his contract, and the contract can still be a bad one.

      It’s easy when you know how, Sybil.

    30. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2013 | 2:33 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The 1976 American League Champion New York Yankees are “forever tainted” by losing to the Big Red Machine in the World Series? I’ve never heard that one before. The next time I see Chris Chambliss, I’ve mention that to him.

      Willie Randolph seems to think it was pretty bad…

      “That’s what happened with us,” he said. “We were thoroughly embarrassed. We came back in ’77 to show the world we were better than what they saw in ’76…”But we were mad that we got swept and that people thought we were no good. The feeling held over to the next year.”

      Good thing the 1977 Yanks didn’t regard their 1976 American League Championship rings as being equal to a World’s Champions ring, or they might never have won it all.

      There’s a big difference between a team securing a wildcard spot, and a team winning two postseason series and an League Championship. Ask Billy Beane – he’s never done it. And ask Brian Cashman – he’s never done it without spending $423.5M.

      And teams that make the playoffs, and teams that lose the World Series have one important thing in common; they’re 1 of the 29 loser teams.

    31. Kamieniecki
      December 21st, 2013 | 9:17 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Because if he plays as he did last year, he’s worth about 6 WAR, which has a marginal value of about $30 million, which is MORE than the Yankees will pay him.

      The other half is that with his injury history, he’s not likely to do this for more than 2-3 years of his contract.
      See? He can still be a valuable player for the Yankees, at least for part of his contract, and the contract can still be a bad one.

      Brilliant.

    32. Kamieniecki
      December 21st, 2013 | 9:22 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’m thinking about [the fact that the St. Louis Cardinals have won twice as many World Championships as the New York Yankees (2001-11)].

      What it tells me is that Billy Beane is right; the post-season is a crapshoot.

      http://waswatching.com/2011/10/28/congrats-to-the-st-louis-cardinals/

      The 2011 St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series, therefore Billy Beane was right, and the postseason is a crapshoot. The postseason is a crapshoot, but the ’76 Yankees are “forever tainted,” because the team won the first series of the postseason, and lost the second series of the postseason to one of the best teams of the ’70s…

      @ Evan3457:
      “Tasty logic there, Sherlock.” Why would the ’76 A.L. Championship team be “forever tainted” by losing one postseason series that was “mostly luck?” If postseason series aren’t “mostly luck,” then what happened to Team Cashman in the A.L. playoffs in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

    33. McMillan
      December 21st, 2013 | 9:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’ll always fondly remember 1976, only because it was the first pennant I saw them win as a fan. That team will also forever be tainted by getting swept by the Reds.

      @ Evan3457:
      And, of course, you should have known that although the Cincinnati Reds won 102 games in 1976, the New York Yankees won 97 games, and “The Smiling Cobra’s” Yankees had an excellent chance of bringing down The Big Red Machine if Bench, Rose, Morgan, Perez, and Foster all “got cold” at the same time because the postseason is a crapshoot, and anything can happen… It must have been a great disappointment.

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Tons of flaws in the arguments he makes…

      @ Evan3457:
      Any idea what some of the tons of flaws in Rany Jazayerli’s arguments might be? I’m not having much “luck” spotting them…

    34. Mr. October
      December 21st, 2013 | 10:48 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And teams that make the playoffs, and teams that lose the World Series have one important thing in common; they’re 1 of the 29 loser teams.

      What “loser” was responsible for constructing the $200 Mil. Yankee teams of 2005-07, and 2010-12?

    35. McMillan
      December 21st, 2013 | 11:08 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … That’s why both teams are jumping all over each other after the World Series is over, because both teams know they’re getting a ring…

      Louise Meanwell and Cashman were jumping all over each other after their affair was over, because she thought she was getting a ring…

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

      McMillan wrote:

      “The Smiling Cobra’s” Yankees…

      Does Cashman have a nickname?

    37. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:35 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Because if he plays as he did last year, he’s worth about 6 WAR, which has a marginal value of about $30 million, which is MORE than the Yankees will pay him.
      The other half is that with his injury history, he’s not likely to do this for more than 2-3 years of his contract.
      See? He can still be a valuable player for the Yankees, at least for part of his contract, and the contract can still be a bad one.
      Brilliant.

      Oh, not that brilliant.
      Just beyond you.

      Here’s something more your speed:
      http://madhattermagicshop.com/magicshop/images/model24.jpg

    38. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:48 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’m thinking about [the fact that the St. Louis Cardinals have won twice as many World Championships as the New York Yankees (2001-11)].
      What it tells me is that Billy Beane is right; the post-season is a crapshoot.
      http://waswatching.com/2011/10/28/congrats-to-the-st-louis-cardinals/
      The 2011 St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series, therefore Billy Beane was right, and the postseason is a crapshoot. The postseason is a crapshoot, but the ’76 Yankees are “forever tainted,” because the team won the first series of the postseason, and lost the second series of the postseason to one of the best teams of the ’70s…
      @ Evan3457:
      “Tasty logic there, Sherlock.” Why would the ’76 A.L. Championship team be “forever tainted” by losing one postseason series that was “mostly luck?” If postseason series aren’t “mostly luck,” then what happened to Team Cashman in the A.L. playoffs in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

      First stupidity on your part: the 2006 Cards, not the 2011 Cards, which were a much better team than their counterparts from five years before.

      Second stupidity on your part: failing to take into account degrees of the argument, and insisting on “all or nothing” in every case. I’ve also said previously that the post-season becomes less of a crapshoot if one of the teams in it is a overwhelmingly strong team. Yet, that same Reds team nearly lost the World Series the year before…to a Red Sox team that finished 7 games out in 1974, and 15.5 games out in 1976. I’ve also said that the addition of a 3rd round of playoffs (and now a 4th) makes it more of a crapshoot than before. You recognize neither of these things that are obvious to anyone that thinks about the post-season in any other context than an attempt to indict and convict Brian Cashman.

      The 3rd stupidity is conflating result with emotional processing of the result. The Reds were the better team in 1976. They won it all. The Yankees won the pennant, and I was happy about that. But they got swept by the Reds, and were no competition after game 2. That taints the pennant the Yanks won. The players did think they were winners after the series was ovver. .George Steinbrenner sure didn’t think that after they got trounced. He gave out rings because rings had been given out to pennant winners for at least 5 decades. But nobody connected to the team was overjoyed at winning the pennant; at least, not after the World Series was over.

    39. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:55 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Does Cashman have a nickname?

      He’s been referred to as a Smooth Operator and Skilled Swordsman… Or was it a Skilled Operator and Smooth Swordsman?

    40. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:57 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’ll always fondly remember 1976, only because it was the first pennant I saw them win as a fan. That team will also forever be tainted by getting swept by the Reds.
      @ Evan3457:
      And, of course, you should have known that although the Cincinnati Reds won 102 games in 1976, the New York Yankees won 97 games, and “The Smiling Cobra’s” Yankees had an excellent chance of bringing down The Big Red Machine if Bench, Rose, Morgan, Perez, and Foster all “got cold” at the same time because the postseason is a crapshoot, and anything can happen… It must have been a great disappointment.

      It was a disappointment.
      But then, I root for the Yankees, and not AGAINST Cashman.

      Same superteam nearly lost the World Series the year before to a Red Sox that finished 3rd the year before (1974) and 3rd the year after, and didn’t make it back to the post-season for 10 years after that.
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Any idea what some of the tons of flaws in Rany Jazayerli’s arguments might be? I’m not having much “luck” spotting them…

      The foremost flaw is the same one you’re making. The Yanks of 2013 got such poor results from so many positions last season as a result of a myriad of injuries (and CC’s dropoff) that even if the aging players decline on schedule (and not excessively), the performance of the team will improve at catcher, 1st base, shortstop, 3rd base, left field and right field, and 4th starter to offset the losses elsewhere and arrest the decline. If they were lucky, as you say, they should, without any further improvements, wind up back where they were at least, and possibly as much as 5 games better.

      Most of the decline Jazayeri forsees is already “factored in” for 2014 from the results from last year. Now, if they make no improvements in bringing along young players, then they might collapse as he forsees. Or maybe the spending restraint comes off completely, and they make improvements that way.

    41. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:57 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      And teams that make the playoffs, and teams that lose the World Series have one important thing in common; they’re 1 of the 29 loser teams.
      What “loser” was responsible for constructing the $200 Mil. Yankee teams of 2005-07, and 2010-12?

      The same man who constructed the title winner of 2009.

    42. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2013 | 7:58 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      … That’s why both teams are jumping all over each other after the World Series is over, because both teams know they’re getting a ring…
      Louise Meanwell and Cashman were jumping all over each other after their affair was over, because she thought she was getting a ring…

      Beaten again, you’re reduced to another “whocaresMeanwell” jibe landing with a thud. And that qualifies you for:

      http://www.wondercostumes.com/imgzoom/evil-clown-shoes-60240.jpg

    43. Kamieniecki
      December 22nd, 2013 | 8:15 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:
      <blockquote
      … failing to take into account degrees of the argument…

      What you fail to take into account is that we are discussing the M.L.B. postseason from 1969-2013, not the 2006 postseason.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’ve also said that the addition of a 3rd round of playoffs (and now a 4th) makes it more of a crapshoot than before.

      Wrong.

      It’s the opposite – there is less of an opportunity or chance for less competitive postseason teams, or teams with league-average pitching, to win a League Championship in a best-of-five series with one exceptional performance by starting pitchers on either team… Less competitive postseason teams have had to get through both a best-of-five series and a best-of-seven series to win a League Championship since 1995.

      The opposite is true.

      How many League Championships have the Yankees won with one of the top regular season offenses each year in terms of runs scored and O.P.S.+ since 2005, genius?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      That taints the [1976] pennant the Yanks won.

      Asinine.

    44. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2013 | 8:24 pm
    45. Kamieniecki
      December 22nd, 2013 | 8:42 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:

      … Same superteam nearly lost the World Series the year before to a Red Sox that finished 3rd the year before (1974) and 3rd the year after, and didn’t make it back to the post-season for 10 years after that.

      That superteam was called The Big Red Machine, genius.

      “The Big Red Machine is the nickname given to the Cincinnati Reds baseball team which dominated the National League from 1970 to 1976. The team is widely recognized as being among the best teams in baseball history. Over that span, the team won five National League West Division titles, four National League pennants, and two World Series titles. The team’s combined record from 1970-1976 was 683 wins and 443 losses, an average of nearly 98 wins per season…”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Red_Machine

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yanks of 2013 got such poor results from so many positions last season as a result of a myriad of injuries (and CC’s dropoff)

      There were no injuries to the pitching staff, the poor offensinve numbers or results at catcher, shortstop, D.H., and other positions were related more to poor personnel decisions made in years leading up to the 2012-13 offseason, than to injuries to Granderson and Teixeira. So, you haven’t pointed out a flaw.

      However, it is cute the way the three of you “grown men” have backed each other up through thick and thin on a baseball blog through the years (e.g. http://waswatching.com/2013/04/18/a-j-burnett/)…

    46. Mr. October
      December 22nd, 2013 | 9:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Same superteam nearly lost the World Series the year before to a Red Sox that finished 3rd the year before (1974) and 3rd the year after, and didn’t make it back to the post-season for 10 years after that.

      You insist on arguing a general position about the postseason, or the 2005-12 Yankees, by citing specific teams (eg 1974 Red Sox, 2006 Cardinals), because you don’t have postseason data in general to support your position. Weak argument, at best.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The foremost flaw is the same one you’re making. The Yanks of 2013 got such poor results from so many positions last season as a result of a myriad of injuries (and CC’s dropoff)

      The article addressed this:

      “… Despite playing in a park that’s favorable to hitters, the Yankees finished just 10th in the league in runs scored. Age (Suzuki was 39 and played like it), injuries (Teixeira played in 15 games, Granderson in 61), the combination of both (Jeter), and Shakespearean tragicomedy (Rodriguez) rendered more than half of the Yankees’ projected lineup useless…”

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      … personnel decisions made in years leading up to the 2012-13 offseason…

      “… and the team had already punted on one of the other four spots when it let Russell Martin leave as a free agent so it could inexplicably play Chris Stewart behind the plate instead…”

      “Next foremost flaw, please…”

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The same man who constructed the title winner of 2009.

      Was George Steinbrenner the person who authorized or approved $423.5 Mil. in spending on free agents in 2008-2009, or was it his son Hal by that time?

    47. PHMDen
      December 23rd, 2013 | 10:11 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Nobody cares which team lost the Super Bowl, either, except those teams that have made Super Bowls and never won one, because that represents the closest they’ve ever gotten to being champions. As a Giants fan, I never give a second thought to the 2000 team that got pounded by the Ravens.

      Even today, in New York sports, people are arguing that Ryan should keep his job with the Jets because he got the team to 2 AFC Championship games in 5 years.

      Cashman has gotten this team to only 3 League Championship series in 10 years – losing 2 of them – and there’s no salary cap in baseball. As someone pointed out earlier: there’s is a big difference between getting to an LDS, and getting to a World Series. How many LDS has Beane gotten to? 7 How many World Series? 0.

      That’s why rings are given out for a League Championship – it’s a meaningful accomplishment. Spending $229 Million to win 95 games isn’t a very meaningful accomplishment; Beane wins 95 games spending $60 Million.

    48. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 7:40 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      <blockquote
      … failing to take into account degrees of the argument…
      What you fail to take into account is that we are discussing the M.L.B. postseason from 1969-2013, not the 2006 postseason.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’ve also said that the addition of a 3rd round of playoffs (and now a 4th) makes it more of a crapshoot than before.
      Wrong.

      No, YOU are dead wrong, laughably wrong, in fact.

      By bringing more teams into the playoffs, it greatly increases the chance that an 83-win team, let's call them the 2006 Cards, MAKES the post-season, without which, they'd never even have a chance to win it all. In fact, they finish 3rd in the NL East.

      In addition, under the old Championship Series/World Series playoff system that existed before 1995:

      The 2012 Giants lose the NL West to the Reds, and never make the playoff.
      The 2011 Cards lose the NL East to the Phillies.
      The 2008 Phillies lose the NL East to the Cubs.
      The 2007 Red Sox have to beat the Indians to win the AL West.
      The 2004 Red Sox lose the AL East to the Yankees.
      The 2003 Marlins lose the NL East to the Braves. By 10 games.
      The 2002 Angels lose the AL West to the A's.
      The 2001 Diamondbacks lose the NL West to the Astros.
      The 2000 Yankees lose the AL East to the Indians.
      The 1997 Marlins lose the NL East to the Braves.
      The 1996 Yankees lose the AL East to the Indians.

      It’s the opposite – there is less of an opportunity or chance for less competitive postseason teams, or teams with league-average pitching, to win a League Championship in a best-of-five series with one exceptional performance by starting pitchers on either team… Less competitive postseason teams have had to get through both a best-of-five series and a best-of-seven series to win a League Championship since 1995.
      The opposite is true.

      12 of the last 19 champions fail to make the playoffs under the old two-round system. The fact that they prove themselves through three rounds of playoffs is irrelevant if they don’t make the post-season in the first place.

      How many League Championships have the Yankees won with one of the top regular season offenses each year in terms of runs scored and O.P.S.+ since 2005, genius?

      Championship teams are good at lots of things.
      The team which led the AL in runs scored won 5 of the 19 AL pennants since 1995.
      The team which led the AL in fewest runs allowed won 5 of the 19.
      The average AL pennant winner in that time had 4 ordinals in runs scored per game (finished 4th in the league on average) and 3.26 ordinals in runs allowed (finished between 3rd and 4th, 3rd about 3/4 of the time, 4th about 1/4 of the time).

      In the last 5 years, the only AL pennant winner to finish higher in runs allowed per game than runs scored per game is the 2012 Tigers. The only World Series won by the AL in the last 5 years were won by teams that finished 7th and 6th in the AL, respectively, in runs allowed per game. Of the 5 teams that led the AL in runs per game when they won the pennant, 4 of them also won the World Series. Of the 5 teams that lead the league in runs allowed per game when they won the pennant, 3 also won the World Series.

      Similar story in the NL: 5 ordinals in runs scored 3.63 in runs allowed.
      5 teams won the pennant while leading the league in runs scored, 2 of the 5 won the World Series. 5 of the teams won the pennnant while leading the league in fewest runs allowed, NONE of the 5 won the World Series. In the last 5 years, the only NL pennant winner to be better at not allowing runs than scoring them was the 2010 Giants. They won it all. The other 4 split 2-2.

      If you’re saying that the Yanks have had good enough hitting to win the pennant in some of those years, but not good enough pitching, that’s a fair argument. But neither is usually good enough to win it all by itself. There’s a slight edge to pitching, but pennant-winning, and World-Series winning teams are usually got at both. The average World Series winner had 4.68 ordinals in runs scored, and 3.68 in runs allowed.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      That taints the [1976] pennant the Yanks won.
      Asinine.

      You can have all six of your persona call it 6 different names, and it still won’t make a difference, Sybil.

    49. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 7:40 am
    50. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 7:57 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:
      … Same superteam nearly lost the World Series the year before to a Red Sox that finished 3rd the year before (1974) and 3rd the year after, and didn’t make it back to the post-season for 10 years after that.
      That superteam was called The Big Red Machine, genius.
      “The Big Red Machine is the nickname given to the Cincinnati Reds baseball team which dominated the National League from 1970 to 1976. The team is widely recognized as being among the best teams in baseball history. Over that span, the team won five National League West Division titles, four National League pennants, and two World Series titles. The team’s combined record from 1970-1976 was 683 wins and 443 losses, an average of nearly 98 wins per season…”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Red_Machine

      Big Red Machine finished 1st in the NL in runs scored in both 1975 and 1976. They finished 3rd in runs allowed in 1975, and 5th in 1976, barely below the NL average that year.

      There were no injuries to the pitching staff,

      Mariano was hurt in August and September. Nova was on the DL for a month. Just about every important reliever was hurt at the same time as they fell out of the race. Andy Pettitte started the season with an lower back injury, and trying to pitch through it, strained his trapezius, missing about a month all together. David Phelps missed nearly two months with an elbow/forearm strain. And Pineda spent the whole season rehabbing. Now if you said they pitching was as hurt as the hitting, that would be right.

      the poor offensinve numbers for results at catcher

      If you ignore Cervelli, who was off the best start of his career by far…

      shortstop
      Which personnel decision would that be? To believe that Jeter could come back at some point in 2013 and be at least somewhat effective?

      blockquote> D.H.

      Decimated by injuries up and down the lineup, leaving no major league hitters to DH. You can criticize the Hafner signing here, I suppose, but in 2012, Ibanez was good in April and early May, great from mid-September through October, but just as bad as 2013, if not worse, in between.

      , and other positions were related more to poor personnel decisions made in years leading up to the 2012-13 offseason, than to injuries to Granderson and Teixeira. So, you haven’t pointed out a flaw.

      No, injuries were much more damaging, as a whole, than poor personnel decisions, unless you want to count the decision to give Jeter a 4 year deal after 2010 a “poor personnel decision”.

      However, it is cute the way the three of you “grown men” have backed each other up through thick and thin on a baseball blog through the years (e.g. http://waswatching.com/2013/04/18/a-j-burnett/)…

      When I disagree with Raf or MJ, I say so.
      You, on the other hand, being 6 different manifestations of the same banal troll, never disagree with each other. And putting “grown men” in quotes is unintentionally hilarious, coming as it does from the one who needs to express himself in six “different voices” so it doesn’t look like he’s outnumbered.

      So transparent; so obvious. And deserving of yet one more…
      http://img.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/ellie/121Clown-Mens-Multicolor-Clown-Shoes-large.jpg

    51. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:04 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Same superteam nearly lost the World Series the year before to a Red Sox that finished 3rd the year before (1974) and 3rd the year after, and didn’t make it back to the post-season for 10 years after that.
      You insist on arguing a general position about the postseason, or the 2005-12 Yankees, by citing specific teams (eg 1974 Red Sox, 2006 Cardinals), because you don’t have postseason data in general to support your position. Weak argument, at best.
      </blockquote
      I've cited the data, repeatedly. Just did it again, above. You choose to ignore it, Sybil. Doesn't win the argument, or even come close.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      The foremost flaw is the same one you’re making. The Yanks of 2013 got such poor results from so many positions last season as a result of a myriad of injuries (and CC’s dropoff)

      The article addressed this:
      “… Despite playing in a park that’s favorable to hitters, the Yankees finished just 10th in the league in runs scored. Age (Suzuki was 39 and played like it), injuries (Teixeira played in 15 games, Granderson in 61), the combination of both (Jeter), and Shakespearean tragicomedy (Rodriguez) rendered more than half of the Yankees’ projected lineup useless…”

      Right, he mentions the injuries, then doesn’t adjust his computations for the replacement of replacement level players at 6 different positions with players considerably above replacement level. So, it’s still a flaw.

      … personnel decisions made in years leading up to the 2012-13 offseason…
      “… and the team had already punted on one of the other four spots when it let Russell Martin leave as a free agent so it could inexplicably play Chris Stewart behind the plate instead…” “Next foremost flaw, please…”

      Chris Stewart wasn’t supposed to be the starting catcher. Cervelli was. And he was playing quite well when he got hurt, and missed 5/6 of the season due to injury (he would’ve been out for the season with his two injuries with or without the suspension, which is why he took the suspension).

      The same man who constructed the title winner of 2009.
      Was George Steinbrenner the person who authorized or approved $423.5 Mil. in spending on free agents in 2008-2009, or was it his son Hal by that time?

      Sorry, pick one side of that argument and stick with it. If you’d blame Cashman for all the bad spending in other years, then he gets credit for it when it works and wins a title. If Hal or George is responsible for 2009, then they’re responsible for all the other years, too.

    52. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:08 am

      PHMDen wrote:

      Even today, in New York sports, people are arguing that Ryan should keep his job with the Jets because he got the team to 2 AFC Championship games in 5 years.

      Exactly so, and I said as much above. Jets fans still give Ryan some credit because the majority of Jets fans living today have no personal memory of Super Bowl III, so Ryan’s back to back AFC Championship Games (not even LOSING the Super Bowl) is as good as it’s gotten for them in 45 years!

      As a Yankee fan, I don’t think this way. Pennants are nice, but the point is to win it all. To win it all, you have to first make the post-season.

    53. Kamieniecki
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:45 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, YOU are dead wrong, laughably wrong, in fact.

      Your argument is based on a flawed premise(s), as I’ve told you in the past. But out of consideration to others, I’m not going to take this thread to 100 comments again. Since 1995, a team must win two (2) postseason series to win a pennant, or a League Championship; before 1995, a team had to win only one (1) best-of-five series to win a pennant, or League Championship. Thus, a weaker team with less SP depth had a shorter road to a pennant. If it makes you happy to have the last word – hey, it’s Christmas. F.Y.I.: the clown jokes have been about as big a hit as “Pupsockets R Fun.” Sad.

    54. Kamieniecki
      December 24th, 2013 | 8:52 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      … before 1995, a team had to win only one (1) best-of-five series to win a pennant, or League Championship.

      From 1969-1985 it was a best-of-five, excuse me.

    55. Evan3457
      December 24th, 2013 | 3:04 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      No, YOU are dead wrong, laughably wrong, in fact.
      Your argument is based on a flawed premise(s), as I’ve told you in the past. But out of consideration to others, I’m not going to take this thread to 100 comments again. Since 1995, a team must win two (2) postseason series to win a pennant, or a League Championship; before 1995, a team had to win only one (1) best-of-five series to win a pennant, or League Championship. Thus, a weaker team with less SP depth had a shorter road to a pennant. If it makes you happy to have the last word – hey, it’s Christmas. F.Y.I.: the clown jokes have been about as big a hit as “Pupsockets R Fun.” Sad.

      There is no flawed premise.

      Before you can win two post-season series, or one post-season series before 1995, you have to make the post-season.

      The weaker team with less starting pitching depth had far less chance to survive the 162-game schedule and make the post-season, and all of those teams that won the title from the Wild Card, or by winning weaker divisions than they would have been in under the old system, would never have won anything.

      The clown shoes pictures are not a joke, but a commentary. They’re not really intended to be funny. Not suprising you don’t get that, either.

    56. Kamieniecki
      December 26th, 2013 | 12:25 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      If you’re saying that the Yanks have had good enough hitting to win the pennant in some of those years, but not good enough pitching, that’s a fair argument. But neither is usually good enough to win it all by itself. There’s a slight edge to pitching, but pennant-winning, and World-Series winning teams are usually got at both.

      @ Evan3457:
      The problem has been postseason starting pitching depth 2005-13; even in 2009 the depth should have been stronger for a team with the highest payrolls in baseball by a substantial margin in each year from 1998-2009, but it was strong enough to win that year.

      How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the reason your friend Billy Beane has not won anything is because pitching is not good enough to win it all by itself with $50 million teams? You have some type of disability, or something… more than one problem, but one of them is a disability that affects your comprehsion of what you read.

      There is not an edge to pitching that is only slight; it is much more than a slight edge (see below, again), and the primary reason Team Cashman has not won more than one League Championship with more than $2 Billion spent since 2005.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Before you can win two post-season series, or one post-season series before 1995, you have to make the post-season.

      No s***?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The weaker team with less starting pitching depth had far less chance to survive the 162-game schedule and make the post-season, and all of those teams that won the title from the Wild Card, or by winning weaker divisions than they would have been in under the old system, would never have won anything.

      Team Cashman’s problems has been postseason starting pitching depth, or weaker nos. 3-4 in the postseason rotation. Since 1995, the difference in ERs averaged by regular nos. 1-3 starters and nos. 4-5 starters in the postseason is more than 1.0 runs per 9.0 innings, and teams with SP that has yielded fewer ERs have won 83.75% of all postseason series played. Keep flailing, chump.

    57. Mr. October
      December 27th, 2013 | 10:16 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      That’s funny; because it looked to me like [the Yanks] poor hitting, especially in key spots, doomed them in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010 (against the Rangers), 2011, and 2012 [and not their starting pitching].

      Evan3457 wrote:

      If you’re saying that the Yanks have had good enough hitting to win the pennant in some of those years, but not good enough pitching, that’s a fair argument.

      Well, which is it? First it was the Yanks starting pitching was good enough, but the reason the team lost was poor hitting in key spots… and now, four months later, the Yanks not having good enough pitching is a “fair argument.”

    58. Mr. October
      December 27th, 2013 | 11:11 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      If you’re saying that the Yanks have had good enough hitting to win the pennant in some of those years, but not good enough pitching, that’s a fair argument. But neither is usually good enough to win it all by itself. There’s a slight edge to pitching, but pennant-winning, and World-Series winning teams are usually got at both. The average World Series winner had 4.68 ordinals in runs scored, and 3.68 in runs allowed.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’ve cited the data, repeatedly. Just did it again, above. You choose to ignore it, Sybil. Doesn’t win the argument, or even come close.

      This is a new argument, not a repeated one. “Ordinals?” It took you four months to come up with this? Is this the Doomsday argument? I’ll explain below why this doesn’t cut it, again… But there should be some kind of cut-off for all of these arguments, no? How much time do you need?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The brutal facts that you can’t get away from:
      11 of the 18 World Champions were among the top four teams in MLB, as measured by regular season WPCT. 7 of the 18 were 5th or lower. 3 of the 18 champions had the best record…

      @ Evan3457:
      The brutal facts that you can’t get away from:

      SInce 1995, regular season nos. 1-3 starting pitchers overall have registered lower postseason Earned Run Averages than nos. 4-5 starters by more than one (1) Earned Run per nine (9) innings; and 83.75% of all postseason series have been won by teams with starting pitching registering lower ERAs than opposing starters – In your words, “it’s the pitching, and not the hitting, which determines who wins.”

      There is more than a “slight edge” to having a Verlander, Scherzer and Sanchez than a Mussina, Johnson, and Chacon or Jaret Wright in the postseason.

      And you were not able to prove the postseason is “mostly luck,” either. The perfect illustration of the flaw in your “main” argument or reasoning was the 1980 ALCS example provided. You should remember that the 97-win Kansas City Royals had the 103-win Yankees number throughout the season, winning 8 of 12 games, and the 103-win team was not the same team that the 1976-78 teams were.

      The 1980 Yankees had a better offensive team in terms of OPS, OPS+, R, etc., AND a better pitching staff in terms of ERA, ERA+, etc. – but were 4-8 against the Royals in the regular season – “luck” had nothing to do with the ALCS outcome – if New York had won – THAT would have supported your “argument.”

      Your arguments simply are not valid. The weakest of all, is the “brutal fact” of only three teams with the highest regular season WPCT winning the World Series since 1995; “hysterically feeble.”

    59. Evan3457
      December 28th, 2013 | 3:57 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The problem has been postseason starting pitching depth 2005-13; even in 2009 the depth should have been stronger for a team with the highest payrolls in baseball by a substantial margin in each year from 1998-2009, but it was strong enough to win that year.

      The 1987 Twins won a title with a rotation of Frank Viola, Bert Blyleven and Les Straker. The 1993 Jays won it all with a rotation of Stewart, Hentgen, Guzman and Stottlemyre. The 2002 Angels won it with a rotation of Appier, Washburn, Lackey and Ortiz (and along the way, their offense crushed a Yankee team with a rotation of Clemens, Mussina, Pettitte and Wells). The 2003 Marlins rotation was Beckett, Penny, Pavano, and Redman, which beat the Clemens, Mussina, Pettitte and Wells rotation. (Again, that great rotation got beaten in a post-season series. One year in the 1st round, the next year, in the Series.) Then there’s the 2006 Cardinals. The 2008 Phillies won with a rotation of Hamels, Moyer, Myers and Blanton. Only Hamels pitched like an ace during the regular season (as a team, the Phillies were 7th in starters’ ERA that year. The 2009 Yankees had a rotation of Sabathia, Pettitte and Burnett, Pettitte was THEIR #2 starter, he didn’t pitch like a championship #2 during the season. The 2012 Cards rotation had no starter with an ERA+ over 110 for the regular season, none of them made the All-Star team, none of them got even a single vote for the Cy Young. Doesn’t sound very dominant #1-2 starterish to me. That team slugged its way to the title.

      How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the reason your friend Billy Beane has not won anything is because pitching is not good enough to win it all by itself with $50 million teams?

      And how many times do all the counterexamples have to be pointed out to you? Add to that list the 2002 Yankees, which had four excellent starters, but got swept out in the 1st round by an Angels team that battered the Yankee pitching to death, and won the series with a staff of excellent and one good starting pitcher, backed up by a better lineup, an outstanding defense, and outstanding bullpen work.

      You have some type of disability, or something… more than one problem, but one of them is a disability that affects your comprehsion of what you read.

      Your the one with the personality disorder, Sybil.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Before you can win two post-season series, or one post-season series before 1995, you have to make the post-season.
      No s***?

      Sorry, you don’t get to say “no spit” and also make the argument that the current playoff format allows teams with weaker starter staffs to make the playoffs when they wouldn’t have before.

      Since 1995, the difference in ERs averaged by regular nos. 1-3 starters and nos. 4-5 starters in the postseason is more than 1.0 runs per 9.0 innings, and teams with SP that has yielded fewer ERs have won 83.75% of all postseason series played. Keep flailing, chump.

      Already refuted many times. There is no way to tell which team will pitch better in the post-season based on the regular season record, and therefore, which team will win it all. And that’s why the post-season was, and will remain, largely a crapshoot, except when superteams that can do it all very well emerge. And even those teams will lose out occasionally, as the 2001 Mariners did.

    60. Evan3457
      December 28th, 2013 | 3:58 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      That’s funny; because it looked to me like [the Yanks] poor hitting, especially in key spots, doomed them in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010 (against the Rangers), 2011, and 2012 [and not their starting pitching].
      Evan3457 wrote:
      If you’re saying that the Yanks have had good enough hitting to win the pennant in some of those years, but not good enough pitching, that’s a fair argument.
      Well, which is it? First it was the Yanks starting pitching was good enough, but the reason the team lost was poor hitting in key spots… and now, four months later, the Yanks not having good enough pitching is a “fair argument.”

      Both, Sybil. That’s the whole point.

    61. Evan3457
      December 28th, 2013 | 4:19 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      This is a new argument, not a repeated one. “Ordinals?” It took you four months to come up with this? Is this the Doomsday argument? I’ll explain below why this doesn’t cut it, again… But there should be some kind of cut-off for all of these arguments, no? How much time do you need?

      There never was a “Doomsday argument” or “Mother of All Arguements”. That was your insiped interpretation of what I wrote, Sybil. It didn’t take me 4 months. I had the time to look at that up and I wrote it. I notice you don’t refute it, because you can’t.

      The brutal facts that you can’t get away from:
      SInce 1995, regular season nos. 1-3 starting pitchers overall have registered lower postseason Earned Run Averages than nos. 4-5 starters by more than one (1) Earned Run per nine (9) innings; and 83.75% of all postseason series have been won by teams with starting pitching registering lower ERAs than opposing starters – In your words, “it’s the pitching, and not the hitting, which determines who wins.”

      Not my words, just your usual strawman tactics of chopping a comment to make the point you want to make. And your argument above has already been refuted over and over merely by noting that nobody knows which team is going to pitch better in the post-season, and therefore, to return to the original point, the post-season is a crapshoot.

      There is more than a “slight edge” to having a Verlander, Scherzer and Sanchez than a Mussina, Johnson, and Chacon or Jaret Wright in the postseason.

      There is more than a slight edge to having the offense of the 2004 Boston Red Sox in the post-season than the lineup of the 2013 Oakland A’s, too.

      And you were not able to prove the postseason is “mostly luck,” either. The perfect illustration of the flaw in your “main” argument or reasoning was the 1980 ALCS example provided. You should remember that the 97-win Kansas City Royals had the 103-win Yankees number throughout the season, winning 8 of 12 games, and the 103-win team was not the same team that the 1976-78 teams were.
      The 1980 Yankees had a better offensive team in terms of OPS, OPS+, R, etc., AND a better pitching staff in terms of ERA, ERA+, etc. – but were 4-8 against the Royals in the regular season – “luck” had nothing to do with the ALCS outcome – if New York had won – THAT would have supported your “argument.”

      You’re really citing regular season head-to-head as predictive of postseason success? Wow, how amazingly stupid on you part.

      The better regular season head-to-head wins in the post-season?
      That’ll be news to the 2013 Tigers (which beat the Sox 4-3 HTH).
      And to the 2012 Rangers (which beat the Giants 2-1 HTH), and the Reds (which beat the Giants 4-3).
      And to the 2011 Giants (which beat the Cards 5-2 HTH)
      And to the 2010 Braves (which beat the Giants 4-3 HTH)
      And to the 2009 Phillies (which beat the Yanks 2-1 HTH)

      and so on and so on and so on. Did you know that the Royals beat the Yanks head-to-head during the regular seasons of both 1976 AND 1978, but still lost both pennants? Over the 3 years from 1976-1978, the Royals beat the Yanks 18-15, but never won even one of the 3 playoff series between the teams.

      It’s not worth my time to run down all the times a team held a one-sided regular season HTH advantage, yet still lost to the same team in the post-season, such as the 1988 Mets team that won 10 of 11 from the Dodgers but lost the NLCS, or the 2006 Yankees team that lost in the 1st round to a Tigers team it took 5 of 7 from in the regular season, or the 2007 Yankees team that lost in the 1st round to an Indian team it swept during the regular season, 6-0

      Your arguments simply are not valid. The weakest of all, is the “brutal fact” of only three teams with the highest regular season WPCT winning the World Series since 1995; “hysterically feeble.”

      On the contrary, it’s your arguments that have been refuted repeatedly, and every so often, I come up with another way to refute them.

      Like ordinals, Sybil.

    62. Evan3457
      December 28th, 2013 | 7:37 pm

      Finally had time to run some numbers…

      The team that hits more triples wins the series 53.3% of the post-season series.
      The team that steals more bases wins 61.7% of the time.
      The team that hits for a higher BAVG wins 73.7% of the time.
      The team that hits for a higer OPS wins 76.6% of the time.
      The team whose starting pitchers have a lower ERA wins 83.1% of the time.
      The team whose hitters score more runs win 84.2% of the time.
      The team whose hitters drive in more runs win 84.7% of the time.

      Got that, Sybil?

      Starters’ ERA correlates very well with winning. Better than batters BAVG or OPS, far better than team triples or team stolen bases, but not as well as batting runs and batting RBI.

      If anything that gives a slight edge to the hitters (runs and RBI) over the pitchers (starter ERA), but really, they’re two halves of the same coin. One team’s HR hit is the other team’s HR allowed. One team’s batting whiff is the other team’s pitching K.

      So your stat is {drumroll}…

      … basically worthless, and so is the inference you draw from it. Especially since the team that’s going to have better starting pitching for three straight rounds (and there isn’t such a team every post-season) isn’t know before the post-season starts.

      The post-season is a largely a crapshoot, Sybil. I don’t give a damn if you agree or not anymore. Less so if there’s a superteam in a particular post-season, but still a crapshoot, as teams that seem to be superteams have been beaten. (For these purposes, a superteam is a team that leads the league in both runs scored and fewest runs allowed. It’s relatively rare.)

      Like the 1969 Orioles.
      Or the 1988 Mets.
      Or the 1995 Indians.
      Or the 2001 Mariners.

    63. Kamieniecki
      December 29th, 2013 | 1:12 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … You’re really citing regular season head-to-head as predictive of postseason success? Wow, how amazingly stupid on you part.

      The better regular season head-to-head wins in the post-season?
      That’ll be news to the 2013 Tigers (which beat the Sox 4-3 HTH).
      And to the 2012 Rangers (which beat the Giants 2-1 HTH), and the Reds (which beat the Giants 4-3).
      And to the 2011 Giants (which beat the Cards 5-2 HTH)
      And to the 2010 Braves (which beat the Giants 4-3 HTH)
      And to the 2009 Phillies (which beat the Yanks 2-1 HTH)…

      @ Evan3457:
      Any person who actually followed the 1980 season, for example, a season in which New York was not 1-2, or 3-4, against Kansas City, but 4-8, and watched the games, any person with a modicum of knowledge about this game, and about Larry Gura, Dennis Leonard, and Paul Splittorff, etc. – anyone, would not have been surprised by the Royals’ 3-game sweep of New York, or the outcome of the 1980 A.L.C.S.

      Someone with less than a modicum of knowledge about this game, however, would look at the 103 and 97 win totals, or summary information on a site such as BaseballReference.com, and come to the conclusion “the Royals must have gotten ‘hot,’” because the Royals weren’t the “better” team – someone such as yourself.“The playoffs must be ‘mostly luck,’ because a team that won 6 more games in a sport with a 162-game regular season schedule lost a best-of-five game series…”

      Dennis Leonard was a 20-game winner.

      Gura won one of those three games. Was it because he “got hot?” Check out Larry Gura’s numbers against the Yankees from 1977-1982; he was known as a “Yankee Killer.” The Royals had to win only 3 games, and had a Yankee-Killer in Gura, but it must have been “luck,” because the Yankees won six more games than the Royals from April-October – there’s no other possible explanation…

      Brilliant.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … Like the 1969 Orioles.

      And, of course, because the 1969 Baltimore Orioles had 109 wins, and the 1969 New York Mets (with an National League-leading ERA+ of 122), had “only” 100 wins, the Orioles should have won the Series, and the only possible explanation for a team that won 9 more games from Apr.-Oct. not winning the Series – the only possible explanation – is that the New York Mets got “hot,” or “lucky.” This is the simplistic reasoning of a child.

      The New York Mets won the 1969 Series because of the pitching of people with names such as Koosman, Seaver, Gentry, and Ryan. Do those names sound familiar? Probably not. Gary Gentry, Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Nolan Ryan, etc. pitched to a 1.80 ERA in that Series – that is the reason the team won – not “luck;” these were not 39-43 year old pitchers Brian Cashman pulled from a scrap heap that got “lucky” or “hot” against a 109-win A.L. Championship team.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … Or the 2001 Mariners.

      The 2001 Seattle Mariners won 116 games, so that team should have defeated the three-time defending World Champion New York Yankees – a team with “only” 95 wins (that was good enough to come within outs of a 4th consecutive World Championship against Johnson and Schilling), therefore the Yankees, and all of their Hall of Fame players, must have gotten “hot” or “lucky” – there simply is no other possible explanation, right?

      If someone like you wasn’t able to predict the outcome of the 2001 A.L.C.S. “at the time,” then no one could have – someone who tried to predict Javier Vazquez’s final 2010 numbers in March of that year by averaging the 2009 statistics of Sabathia, Pettitte, and Burnett…

      Any team with 3 of a 2001 version of Pettitte, Mussina, Clemens, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, etc. can win 2 consecutive postseason series with a $100 million offense against a 109-116 win team (the A’s haven’t been able to with a $30 million offenses since 2000); getting “hot,” or “lucky” have nothing to do with it…
      The only person in M.L.B. who can get hot and lucky for an entire month is Cashman.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … It’s not worth my time to run down all the times a team held a one-sided regular season HTH advantage, yet still lost to the same team in the post-season, such as the 1988 Mets team that won 10 of 11 from the Dodgers but lost the NLCS, or the 2006 Yankees team that lost in the 1st round to a Tigers team it took 5 of 7 from in the regular season, or the 2007 Yankees team that lost in the 1st round to an Indian team it swept during the regular season…

      The postseason is a different animal. The purpose of the 1980 A.L.C.S. example was/is to demonstrate – again – why regular season win totals are completely meaningless.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Like the 1969 Orioles [Gentry, Seaver, Koosman].
      Or the 1988 Mets [Belcher, Hershiser].
      Or the 1995 Indians [Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz].
      Or the 2001 Mariners [Clemens, Mussina, Pettitte].

      What do these “superteams” have in common? All lost to great postseason rotations. What was the name of that pitcher who threw 59 scoreless innings in 1988? The one who went 3-0 in the 1988 postseason with a 1.05 E.R.A.? What was the name of the pitcher who won the N.L. Cy Young Award in 1995? What was the name of the pitcher who went 20-3 in 2001? What’s the name of the M.L.B. All-Time Postseason Wins Leader – Andy…? How did the M.L.B. All-Time Postseason Wins Leader do against the 2001 Mariners – how “lucky” was he? How “hot” did he get?

      “Pitching is 80% of the game and the other half is hitting and fielding…”
      -Mickey Rivers

      Rivers is more intelligent than people give him credit for…

    64. Mr. October
      December 29th, 2013 | 2:18 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The 1987 Twins won a title with a rotation of Frank Viola, Bert Blyleven and Les Straker. The 1993 Jays won it all with a rotation of Stewart, Hentgen, Guzman and Stottlemyre. The 2002 Angels won it with a rotation of Appier, Washburn, Lackey and Ortiz (and along the way, their offense crushed a Yankee team with a rotation of Clemens, Mussina, Pettitte and Wells). The 2003 Marlins rotation was Beckett, Penny, Pavano, and Redman, which beat the Clemens, Mussina, Pettitte and Wells rotation. (Again, that great rotation got beaten in a post-season series. One year in the 1st round, the next year, in the Series.) Then there’s the 2006 Cardinals. The 2008 Phillies won with a rotation of Hamels, Moyer, Myers and Blanton. Only Hamels pitched like an ace during the regular season (as a team, the Phillies were 7th in starters’ ERA that year. The 2009 Yankees had a rotation of Sabathia, Pettitte and Burnett, Pettitte was THEIR #2 starter, he didn’t pitch like a championship #2 during the season. The 2012 Cards rotation had no starter with an ERA+ over 110 for the regular season, none of them made the All-Star team, none of them got even a single vote for the Cy Young. Doesn’t sound very dominant #1-2 starterish to me. That team slugged its way to the title.

      @ Evan3457:
      You don’t have statistics, so you come up with narratives. Hentgen and Guzman might not be household names, but they were very good pitchers then; Hentgen finished 6th in Cy Young Award voting. And your arguing against yourself by citing Beckett in 2003 he was a pitcher and the WS MVP.

      Evan3457 wrote:


      And how many times do all the counterexamples have to be pointed out to you? Add to that list the 2002 Yankees…

      Your counterexamples amount to the smallest fraction of all playoff teams since 1969; you have no argument, but all of this is great entertainment.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      There is more than a slight edge to having the offense of the 2004 Boston Red Sox in the post-season than the lineup of the 2013 Oakland A’s, too.

      The 2004 Red Sox won because Brian Cashman fielded a “championship-caliber” team with an ERA of 4.69 and an ERA+ of 95… Boston’s great offense needed 7 games against that pitching, and Joe Torre could’ve walked Ortiz at any time, but didn’t.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      There is no way to tell which team will pitch better in the post-season based on the regular season record

      No one said there was, but…

      A lot of people correctly predicted Detroit would pitch better than Boston in the 2013 ALCS, and theTigers did; a lot of people warned that the achilles heels of the Tigers was their bullpen, and it was. Tiger starters DOMINATED Boston’s lineup – DOMINATED it. DOMINATED the best lineup in baseball – a .209 BAVG. DOMINATED it.

      We won’t live to see a Brian Cashman team DOMINATE a post-season lineup like the Red Sox lineup was DOMINATED in that playoff series.

      The FIVE MOST significant players in that series were ALL pitchers: Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, Lester, and Uehara.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … Starters’ ERA correlates very well with winning.

      No; you’re misrepresenting the argument you lost: #1-2 starter post-season ERA has more than a very good correlation with winning. The differential between #1-2 starter post-season ERA and #3-5 starter post-season ERA isn’t insignificant and underscores that point.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      One team’s batting whiff is the other team’s pitching K.

      And teams whiffed more against the 2005-2013 post-season pitching of Boston, Detroit, San Francisco, and St. Louis, than the 2005-2013 pitching of Brian Cashman’s 39-44 year starters.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      the team that’s going to have better starting pitching for three straight rounds (and there isn’t such a team every post-season) isn’t know before the post-season starts.

      When a team has Cy Young Award winners, MVPs, and ERA leaders in the front end of its rotation, it’s a safe bet it will have better starting pitching than any team Brian Cashman fields in any round of any post-season.

      And if that front end can be kept together long enough, it will have more than a .490 WPCT with ANY KIND OF OFFENSE (or anything $100M should be able to buy) – more than the .490 WPCT of the 2005-13 Yankees.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      If someone like you wasn’t able to predict the outcome of the 2001 A.L.C.S. “at the time,” then no one could have – someone who tried to predict Javier Vazquez’s final 2010 numbers in March of that year by averaging the 2009 statistics of Sabathia, Pettitte, and Burnett…

      LOL!

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The only person in M.L.B. who can get hot and lucky for an entire month is Cashman.

      LOL!

      @ Evan3457:
      The post-season is all about pitching. Res judicata (FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata).

    65. McMillan
      December 29th, 2013 | 3:38 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      There’s a slight edge to pitching…

      LOL… That would explain why the difference in postseason E.R.A.s of nos. 1-2 and nos. 3-5 starters of all playoff teams (since 1995) is NOT slight…

    66. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 3:53 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Any person who actually followed the 1980 season, for example, a season in which New York was not 1-2, or 3-4, against Kansas City, but 4-8, and watched the games, any person with a modicum of knowledge about this game, and about Larry Gura, Dennis Leonard, and Paul Splittorff, etc. – anyone, would not have been surprised by the Royals’ 3-game sweep of New York, or the outcome of the 1980 A.L.C.S.

      1. I’m certain the Yanks were the betting favorite before the series started.
      2. Gura, Splitorrff and Leonard were also on the 1976, 1977 and 1978 teams that lost to the Yankees. That they were on the 1980 therefore means…little, if anything.
      3. George was shocked enough to fire Dick Howser after a 103-win season.
      4. The Mets won the 1988 season’s series with the Dodgers 10-1, outscoring them 49-18, yet still lost in the NLCS.

      Someone with less than a modicum of knowledge about this game, however, would look at the 103 and 97 win totals, or summary information on a site such as BaseballReference.com, and come to the conclusion “the Royals must have gotten ‘hot,’” because the Royals weren’t the “better” team – someone such as yourself.“The playoffs must be ‘mostly luck,’ because a team that won 6 more games in a sport with a 162-game regular season schedule lost a best-of-five game series…”

      The Bill James World Series prediction system awards 12 points to the team with the better head to head record during the regular season…out of about 140. So yes, the team that wins head to head has an advantage, but it’s only about 8.6% of the system’s total points awarded.

      The fact that you cite an 8-4 season’s series win as being definitively predictive of a playoff series sweep proves that, despite your pretensions, you know little about baseball.

      Dennis Leonard was a 20-game winner.

      Tommy John was a 22-game winner.

      Gura won one of those three games. Was it because he “got hot?” Check out Larry Gura’s numbers against the Yankees from 1977-1982; he was known as a “Yankee Killer.”

      Gura was a Yankee Killer in the regular season. In the 1976 ALCS, he started 2 games. He lost game 1, though he pitched well until the 9th. He left game 4 after 2 innings, having given up 6 hits and 2 runs. The Royals smacked around Catfish Hunter, and gave Gura a no decision. In the 1977 ALCS, the Yanks smacked him around in game 4, knocking him out in the 3rd inning, and he took the loss. In the 1978 ALCS, he pitched a good game, and got a win…against Ed Figueroa, who was a terrible post-season pitcher, and got knocked out in the 2nd. The Royals piled up 10 runs, and Gura got the win. In his 5 starts against the Yankees from 1976-1978, he was 1-2 with 2 no decisions, allowing 33 hits in 19 innings with an ERA of 5.21.

      The Royals had to win only 3 games, and had a Yankee-Killer in Gura, but it must have been “luck,” because the Yankees won six more games than the Royals from April-October – there’s no other possible explanation…
      Brilliant.

      Same thing in 1976, 1977, and 1978, but hey, obviously, winning the season series 7-5 (1976) is far less significant than winning it 8-4 (1980).

      No, you’re right. Matchups don’t matter. Teams getting hot or cold in the post-season never happens. Season series victories are what matters, as long as it’s 8-4, and not 7-5 or 10-1 or 5-2 or 6-0.

      Boy, you really don’t understand what constitutes proof of any argument, do you?
      Evan3457 wrote:
      … Like the 1969 Orioles.
      And, of course, because the 1969 Baltimore Orioles had 109 wins, and the 1969 New York Mets (with an National League-leading ERA+ of 122), had “only” 100 wins, the Orioles should have won the Series, and the only possible explanation for a team that won 9 more games from Apr.-Oct. not winning the Series – the only possible explanation – is that the New York Mets got “hot,” or “lucky.” This is the simplistic reasoning of a child.
      The New York Mets won the 1969 Series because of the pitching of people with names such as Koosman, Seaver, Gentry, and Ryan. Do those names sound familiar? Probably not. Gary Gentry, Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Nolan Ryan, etc. pitched to a 1.80 ERA in that Series – that is the reason the team won – not “luck;” these were not 39-43 year old pitchers Brian Cashman pulled from a scrap heap that got “lucky” or “hot” against a 109-win A.L. Championship team.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      … Or the 2001 Mariners.
      The 2001 Seattle Mariners won 116 games, so that team should have defeated the three-time defending World Champion New York Yankees – a team with “only” 95 wins (that was good enough to come within outs of a 4th consecutive World Championship against Johnson and Schilling), therefore the Yankees, and all of their Hall of Fame players, must have gotten “hot” or “lucky” – there simply is no other possible explanation, right?
      If someone like you wasn’t able to predict the outcome of the 2001 A.L.C.S. “at the time,” then no one could have – someone who tried to predict Javier Vazquez’s final 2010 numbers in March of that year by averaging the 2009 statistics of Sabathia, Pettitte, and Burnett…
      Any team with 3 of a 2001 version of Pettitte, Mussina, Clemens, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, etc. can win 2 consecutive postseason series with a $100 million offense against a 109-116 win team (the A’s haven’t been able to with a $30 million offenses since 2000); getting “hot,” or “lucky” have nothing to do with it…
      The only person in M.L.B. who can get hot and lucky for an entire month is Cashman.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      … It’s not worth my time to run down all the times a team held a one-sided regular season HTH advantage, yet still lost to the same team in the post-season, such as the 1988 Mets team that won 10 of 11 from the Dodgers but lost the NLCS, or the 2006 Yankees team that lost in the 1st round to a Tigers team it took 5 of 7 from in the regular season, or the 2007 Yankees team that lost in the 1st round to an Indian team it swept during the regular season…
      The postseason is a different animal. The purpose of the 1980 A.L.C.S. example was/is to demonstrate – again – why regular season win totals are completely meaningless.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Like the 1969 Orioles [Gentry, Seaver, Koosman].
      Or the 1988 Mets [Belcher, Hershiser].
      Or the 1995 Indians [Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz].
      Or the 2001 Mariners [Clemens, Mussina, Pettitte].
      What do these “superteams” have in common? All lost to great postseason rotations. What was the name of that pitcher who threw 59 scoreless innings in 1988? The one who went 3-0 in the 1988 postseason with a 1.05 E.R.A.? What was the name of the pitcher who won the N.L. Cy Young Award in 1995? What was the name of the pitcher who went 20-3 in 2001? What’s the name of the M.L.B. All-Time Postseason Wins Leader – Andy…? How did the M.L.B. All-Time Postseason Wins Leader do against the 2001 Mariners – how “lucky” was he? How “hot” did he get?
      “Pitching is 80% of the game and the other half is hitting and fielding…”
      -Mickey Rivers
      Rivers is more intelligent than people give him credit for…

    67. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 5:10 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      And, of course, because the 1969 Baltimore Orioles had 109 wins, and the 1969 New York Mets (with an National League-leading ERA+ of 122),

      And the Orioles had an ERA+ of 126. Next.

      had “only” 100 wins, the Orioles should have won the Series, and the only possible explanation for a team that won 9 more games from Apr.-Oct. not winning the Series – the only possible explanation – is that the New York Mets got “hot,” or “lucky.”

      …and since you’re apparently such a big fan of judging teams by their Pythagorean record, the Orioles were actually better than their 109 wins (110-52) and the Mets were 8 games worse (92-70).

      …and since you’re such a big fan of “everyone knows”, everyone knows the Mets victory over that Orioles team was a huge upset, and that the Mets were red hot from mid-August through the end of the season, coming from 10 games back to win their division by 9 games over a collapsing Cubs team, doing things like winning a game in which Steve Carlton struck a record 19 Mets and the team committing 4 errors, winning because Ron Swoboda hit two 2-run HRs off a pitcher that he was 6-46 against lifetime with those two HRs being the only ones he ever hit off Carlton, or the doubleheader against a good Pirate team in which the Mets won each game 1-0…with the pitcher knocking in the only run of the game each game. Stuff like that isn’t “getting hot” or “luck”. Oh, no, teams do stuff like that every year.

      There’s reasons why they’re called “The Miracle Mets”, you know.

      This is the simplistic reasoning of a child.

      Actually, denying that there can be more than one major factor why teams win or lose in the post-season, and attributing it all to starting pitching is the very definition of simplistic, childish reasoning.

      The New York Mets won the 1969 Series because of the pitching of people with names such as Koosman, Seaver, Gentry, and Ryan. Do those names sound familiar?

      Do the names Palmer, Cuellar, McNally, sound familiar? Those guys were pretty good, too. Seaver was better than Palmer and was great for longer than Palmer, but he also lost the only game the Mets lost in the series. Koosman starter earlier than Cuellar, and was good for longer than Cuellar. But Cuellar won 20 games 4 times, and won a Cy Young Award. 1969 was Gentry’s best season, by far. McNally had the much better career.

      Probably not. Gary Gentry, Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Nolan Ryan, etc. pitched to a 1.80 ERA in that Series

      Nolan Ryan was not a starter in that series. He pitched 2.1 innings in relief of Gentry in game 4…with the Mets already up 4-0 in that game.
      His impact on the Mets winning the series was minimal at best. If it had been a close game, the Mets would’ve gone to one of their relief aces, Taylor or McGraw.

      that is the reason the team won – not “luck;” these were not 39-43 year old pitchers Brian Cashman pulled from a scrap heap that got “lucky” or “hot” against a 109-win A.L. Championship team.

      Of course, that’s why they won, and the only reason they won..not because Agee went wild in game three with two amazing catches that saved four runs (one of them against Paul Blair, the first batter Ryan faced with the bases loaded and two outs in the 7th) and a HR leading off the game. Not because of Ron Swoboda (a known defensive hack) making the greatest catch of his career with the Mets protecting a 1-0 in the 7th inning of game 4 that would’ve gone for at least a double, moving the go-ahead run to third in addition to scoring the tying run. Not because Don Clendenon hit 3 HRs and knocked in 4 runs and hit .357 in the series, including the 2-run HR in the 6th inning of game 5 that started the Mets on their comeback from the 3-0 hole Koosman put them in by giving up two HRs in the 3rd inning, including a 2 run HR by the opposing pitcher, Dave McNally. No, Clendenon won the MVP of the series, and not Koosman, who won two games, because it’s all about the starting pitching.

      No, you’re right, it was just the pitching. They didn’t have any luck, and they never got hot down the stretch, going 38-11 down the stretch to make up 19 games in 7 weeks. It was ESPECIALLY about the pitching when the Mets swept the Braves in the NLCS, with all three of Seaver, Koosman and Gentry pitching ineffectively, and being bailed out by their hitting (or conversely, the Braves pitching), and Nolan Ryan’s great relief job in game 3. The collective ERA of the Mets 3 starters in the NLCS: 8.56. But you’re right: players/teams never blow hot and cold, and matchups never matter in the post-season.

      God, are you dumb.

      The 2001 Seattle Mariners won 116 games, so that team should have defeated the three-time defending World Champion New York Yankees – a team with “only” 95 wins

      So the Mariners were only 21 games better, and 20 games in Pythagorean record (The Yanks Pythagorean mark that season was 89-71.)

      (that was good enough to come within outs of a 4th consecutive World Championship against Johnson and Schilling)

      The truth is the D’backs kicked the crap out of the 3-time defending champions, and if Brenly had gotten smarter sooner, and stopped going to Kim, the series would’ve been over in no more than 6 games. Had the Yankees won that series, it would’ve been the revenge of 1960. By the way, the Yanks best pitcher in that series that they nearly won? Roger Clemens.

      If someone like you wasn’t able to predict the outcome of the 2001 A.L.C.S. “at the time,” then no one could have – someone who tried to predict Javier Vazquez’s final 2010 numbers in March of that year by averaging the 2009 statistics of Sabathia, Pettitte, and Burnett…

      And, again, ignoring the fact that other with more sophisticated methods missed his record by a wider margin than I did, but keep babbling, Sybil…

      Any team with 3 of a 2001 version of Pettitte, Mussina, Clemens, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, etc. can win 2 consecutive postseason series with a $100 million offense against a 109-116 win team (the A’s haven’t been able to with a $30 million offenses since 2000)

      The Mariners offense led the AL in runs scored; the A’s offense was second, and the Mariners beat the Yanks 6-3, in the head-to-head in the regular season. Put that one in your pipe and smoke it, Sybil.

      getting “hot,” or “lucky” have nothing to do with it…

      He doesn’t get it! He’ll never get it!! It’s been a whole year now!! Even the cows understand that matchups, luck and going hot or cold matter in the post-season.

      The postseason is a different animal. The purpose of the 1980 A.L.C.S. example was/is to demonstrate – again – why regular season win totals are completely meaningless.

      Of course the post-season is different.
      But if a whole regular season is meaningless, then how does HTH within that regular season, a much smaller number of games, become meaningful enough to predict anything? Wildly, hysterically illogical.

      What do these “superteams” have in common? All lost to great postseason rotations. What was the name of that pitcher who threw 59 scoreless innings in 1988? The one who went 3-0 in the 1988 postseason with a 1.05 E.R.A.?

      You mean the pitcher who pitched just as well in 1987 and 1989, but was .500 and out of the playoffs in both seasons, that pitcher? Team again how luck isn’t a factor for a pitcher who had WAR of 6.4, 7.2 and 7.0 in consecutive seasons, and went 16-16, 24-8, and 15-15. Tell me again how the Dodgers didn’t get red hot in the post-season. Tell me again how Kirk Gibson’s HR in game 1 off of Eckersley didn’t change that whole series. Tell me again about how David Cone’s mouthing off in his post-season newspaper column didn’t fire the Dodgers up. Explain to me how the same “super-rotation” of Hershiser and Belcher, pitching just as well the next season, wound up 6 games under .500 and 14 games out in 4th place the following season.

      What a boob.

      What was the name of the pitcher who won the N.L. Cy Young Award in 1995?

      How many other titles did this superpitcher and superrotation win?
      None.

      What was the name of the pitcher who went 20-3 in 2001?

      Roger Clemens (a Brian Cashman pickup that you’ve repeatedly said wasn’t worth it).

      What’s the name of the M.L.B. All-Time Postseason Wins Leader – Andy…? How did the M.L.B. All-Time Postseason Wins Leader do against the 2001 Mariners – how “lucky” was he? How “hot” did he get?

      Absolutely amazing you cite Pettitte’s 2001 post-season performance as evidence that pitching is all that matters in the post-season. Monumentally stupid citation, because…

      How come the MLB All-Time Postseason Wins Leader did so great against the Mariners and so horrible against the D’backs in the World Series?
      If he wasn’t going hot and cold in the two series, and he wasn’t “lucky” or “unlucky”, and matchups don’t matter, what other reason could there be?

      Ah, he must been trying to get the crap beat out of him by the D’backs. There are no accidents.

    68. Kamieniecki
      December 29th, 2013 | 5:40 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The fact that you cite an 8-4 season’s series win as being definitively predictive of a playoff series sweep proves that, despite your pretensions, you know little about baseball.

      @ Evan3457:
      I didn’t bring the 1980 A.L.C.S. up – I think you did…

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Gura was a Yankee Killer in the regular season. In the 1976 ALCS, he started 2 games. He lost game 1, though he pitched well until the 9th. He left game 4 after 2 innings, having given up 6 hits and 2 runs. The Royals smacked around Catfish Hunter, and gave Gura a no decision. In the 1977 ALCS, the Yanks smacked him around in game 4, knocking him out in the 3rd inning, and he took the loss. In the 1978 ALCS, he pitched a good game, and got a win…against Ed Figueroa, who was a terrible post-season pitcher, and got knocked out in the 2nd. The Royals piled up 10 runs, and Gura got the win. In his 5 starts against the Yankees from 1976-1978, he was 1-2 with 2 no decisions, allowing 33 hits in 19 innings with an ERA of 5.21.

      @ Evan3457:
      This is all you do in lieu of an argument: tell stories: Do you have a response to this:

      McMillan wrote:

      … That would explain why the difference in postseason E.R.A.s of nos. 1-2 and nos. 3-5 starters of all playoff teams (since 1995) is NOT slight…

      @ Evan3457:
      … Or do you need a few more months? You lost the argument, chump. Get over it, already… It’s not the end of the world…

    69. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 5:48 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      You don’t have statistics, so you come up with narratives.

      No, these are called counterexamples. Try to keep up.

      Hentgen and Guzman might not be household names, but they were very good pitchers then; Hentgen finished 6th in Cy Young Award voting.

      Hentgen finished 6th in the Cy Young voting because he went 19-9 because he had the 6th best run support in the league. Guzman had the best run support. They were 18th and 19th in ERA+ in the AL that season. I challenge to find a World Championship team without a starter who finished higher than 18th in ERA+ (or 17th in basic ERA).

      They were good pitchers then, hardly shutdown aces. They combined for 5 complete games and 1 individual shutout during the regular season. Guzman pitched very well in the ALCS, but Hentgen got clubbed. In the Series, Hentgen won a game. Guzman pitched OK, but didn’t win either of his two starts, and left one game tied, and the other game behind. Hentgen and Guzman were by easily the best starters on that Jays team. Dominant? Not so much.

      And your arguing against yourself by citing Beckett in 2003 he was a pitcher and the WS MVP.

      Didn’t cite Beckett because he wasn’t an ace. Cited him because he was the ONLY ace the Marlins had, while the Yanks had Clemens, Pettitte, Wells, Mussina. Yanks still lost in six games. That’s the point, which, not suprisingly, you missed.

      Your counterexamples amount to the smallest fraction of all playoff teams since 1969; you have no argument, but all of this is great entertainment.

      We’re not talking “playoff teams” or even “playoff series”. We’re talking title winners, and those counterexamples represent a fairly hefty fraction of title winners over the past 20-30 years. Large enough certainly to “circular file” your theories about what’s necessary to win in the post-season.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      There is more than a slight edge to having the offense of the 2004 Boston Red Sox in the post-season than the lineup of the 2013 Oakland A’s, too.
      The 2004 Red Sox won because Brian Cashman fielded a “championship-caliber” team with an ERA of 4.69 and an ERA+ of 95… Boston’s great offense needed 7 games against that pitching, and Joe Torre could’ve walked Ortiz at any time, but didn’t.

      The Red Sox most effective starter in that series was the guy with the 5.42 ERA and the 89 ERA+. He was their only starter with an ERA under 6.

      A lot of people correctly predicted Detroit would pitch better than Boston in the 2013 ALCS, and theTigers did; a lot of people warned that the achilles heels of the Tigers was their bullpen, and it was. Tiger starters DOMINATED Boston’s lineup – DOMINATED it. DOMINATED the best lineup in baseball – a .209 BAVG. DOMINATED it.
      We won’t live to see a Brian Cashman team DOMINATE a post-season lineup like the Red Sox lineup was DOMINATED in that playoff series.

      And you’re missing the point, which is that they LOST the series anyway.
      They LOST the series. They LOST the pennant. They LOST the title. Which means that even the best rotation in the post-season wasn’t enough to win a title. It was good enough to LOSE it.

      The FIVE MOST significant players in that series were ALL pitchers: Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, Lester, and Uehara.

      And the MVP of the series was a reliever: Uehara. Not a starter. Not a dominant starter. A closer. Mike Napoli seems a little more significant than Sanchez to me.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      … Starters’ ERA correlates very well with winning.
      No; you’re misrepresenting the argument you lost: #1-2 starter post-season ERA has more than a very good correlation with winning.

      Very good correlation. 83%. Team runs scored and RBI correlate better.
      You lost before, and you’ve just lost again.

      One team’s batting whiff is the other team’s pitching K.
      And teams whiffed more against the 2005-2013 post-season pitching of Boston, Detroit, San Francisco, and St. Louis, than the 2005-2013 pitching of Brian Cashman’s 39-44 year starters.

      Correct. Better pitchers will pitch better. Better hitters will hit better.

      When a team has Cy Young Award winners, MVPs, and ERA leaders in the front end of its rotation, it’s a safe bet it will have better starting pitching than any team Brian Cashman fields in any round of any post-season.

      Maybe so, but not more titles, if the Braves and Tigers are an indication.

      And if that front end can be kept together long enough, it will have more than a .490 WPCT with ANY KIND OF OFFENSE (or anything $100M should be able to buy) – more than the .490 WPCT of the 2005-13 Yankees.

      Like the “any kind of offense” of the 2000-2002 Oakland A’s, that finished 3rd, 4th and 1st in the AL in runs, but still went 6-9 (.400) in their post-season appearances, despite have Hudson, Zito and Mulder?

      If someone like you wasn’t able to predict the outcome of the 2001 A.L.C.S. “at the time,” then no one could have – someone who tried to predict Javier Vazquez’s final 2010 numbers in March of that year by averaging the 2009 statistics of Sabathia, Pettitte, and Burnett…
      LOL!

      Other, more sophisticated systems did worse. And yet you still make a big deal out of this. ROFLMAO!

      The post-season is all about pitching. Res judicata (FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata).

      And already judged to be…wrong.

    70. Kamieniecki
      December 29th, 2013 | 5:56 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Keep flailing…. What is the postseason E.R.A. for all nos. 1-2 starting pitchers for all playoff teams from 1995-2013? Do you have that number, chump?

    71. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 5:56 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The fact that you cite an 8-4 season’s series win as being definitively predictive of a playoff series sweep proves that, despite your pretensions, you know little about baseball.
      @ Evan3457:
      I didn’t bring the 1980 A.L.C.S. up – I think you did…

      No, actually, you did, right here:

      Any person who actually followed the 1980 season, for example, a season in which New York was not 1-2, or 3-4, against Kansas City, but 4-8, and watched the games, any person with a modicum of knowledge about this game, and about Larry Gura, Dennis Leonard, and Paul Splittorff, etc. – anyone, would not have been surprised by the Royals’ 3-game sweep of New York, or the outcome of the 1980 A.L.C.S.

      And then you used that series to make the point that head-to-head record during the regular season matters, but not overall regular season record, in trying to predict who will win an upcoming series.

      And you were wrong.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Gura was a Yankee Killer in the regular season. In the 1976 ALCS, he started 2 games. He lost game 1, though he pitched well until the 9th. He left game 4 after 2 innings, having given up 6 hits and 2 runs. The Royals smacked around Catfish Hunter, and gave Gura a no decision. In the 1977 ALCS, the Yanks smacked him around in game 4, knocking him out in the 3rd inning, and he took the loss. In the 1978 ALCS, he pitched a good game, and got a win…against Ed Figueroa, who was a terrible post-season pitcher, and got knocked out in the 2nd. The Royals piled up 10 runs, and Gura got the win. In his 5 starts against the Yankees from 1976-1978, he was 1-2 with 2 no decisions, allowing 33 hits in 19 innings with an ERA of 5.21.

      @ Evan3457:
      This is all you do in lieu of an argument: tell stories: Do you have a response to this:

      No, this is called blowing your argument to smithereens by citing evidence. You said Gura was “a Yankee killer”, and I agreed, in the regular season, he was. Then I proved to you and to anyone reading that despite his reputation, he made an overall negative contribution to the Royals’ attempts to win the ALCS in 1976, 1977, and 1978. Therefore, your awarding one game to the Royals in the 1980 ALCS on the basis of his being a “Yankee killer” is idiotic, since it never won the Royals an ALCS before, and only 1 game out in the 3 series combined.

      But you already know it was an idiotic argument, which is why you retreat to the “narrative” dodge. It’s the best you can do under the circumstances. How sad.

      … Or do you need a few more months? You lost the argument, chump. Get over it, already… It’s not the end of the world…

      Didn’t lose it; in fact, won it yet again in the ALCS. Really chumped you. But denial is your modus operandi.

      No one’s surprised; we know why.

    72. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 5:59 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Keep flailing…. What is the postseason E.R.A. for all nos. 1-2 starting pitchers for all playoff teams from 1995-2013? Do you have that number, chump?

      Why do you treat this argument as if it’s some great triumph?
      I’ll be postseason OPS for #3,4,5 hitters as a group is better than that of #7,8,9 hitters?
      Do you have that number?
      No, but you do have yet more
      http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451bd4469e201310faddcc3970c-800wi

    73. Kamieniecki
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:01 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      “Didn’t think so…” LOL. Loser.

    74. McMillan
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:15 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Why do you treat this argument as if it’s some great triumph?

      @ Evan3457:
      … It’s the reason you lost, that’s why.

    75. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:52 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      “Didn’t think so…” LOL. Loser.

      You’re so lame. Arguing with you is punching down.
      You’re not worth my time, but I’m not going to let your idiotic ravings go unchallenged.

    76. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:53 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Why do you treat this argument as if it’s some great triumph?
      @ Evan3457:
      … It’s the reason you lost, that’s why.

      You can say that as many times as you like, and you’re still wrong.
      You’ve been beaten so badly you’re rambling from desperation to desperation, each more pathetic than the last.