• Oh, This Has Brian Cashman Written All Over It

    Posted by on December 27th, 2013 · Comments (65)

    Another nugget!

     

    Comments on Oh, This Has Brian Cashman Written All Over It

    1. Kamieniecki
      December 28th, 2013 | 8:53 am

      Cashman has had tremendous success with starting pitchers such as Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Randy Johnson, Jaret Wright, Scott Erickson, Roger Clemens, Chan Ho Park, Derek Lowe, and Hiroki Kuroda (April – July), so there is certainly a likelihood that this G.M. will consider both Johan Santana and Mulder as options to bolster his 2014 “championship-caliber” rotation.

    2. Evan3457
      December 28th, 2013 | 4:38 pm

      Erickson, Lowe and Park were not brought in as starters. They never started a game for the Yankees.

      Johnson and Wright were George moves.

      Kuroda pitched well in the playoffs in 2012.

      Kevin Brown was acquired for Jeff Weaver when they decided they had to dump Weaver after 2003. Even Brown pitched a good game in the ALDS in 2004.

      And that leaves two: the waiver acquistion of Leiter as an emergency replacement for Pavano, and the re-signing of Roger Clemens, after Hughes and Kennedy bombed in their first major league trial.
      ———————————————————-
      In any event it’s the Angels (Jerry DiPoto) that look like they’re going to sign Mulder.

    3. McMillan
      December 29th, 2013 | 8:15 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Cashman has had tremendous success with starting pitchers such as Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Randy Johnson, Jaret Wright, Scott Erickson, Roger Clemens, Chan Ho Park, Derek Lowe, and Hiroki Kuroda (April – July), so there is certainly a likelihood that this G.M. will consider both Johan Santana and Mulder as options to bolster his 2014 “championship-caliber” rotation.

      … And Sidney Ponson, Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia…

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Erickson, Lowe, and Park were not brought in as starters.

      Scott Erickson, Derek Lowe, and Chan Ho Park were starting pitchers brought in by Brian “I Don’t Care If It’s Old I Care If It’s Good” Cashman.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Johnson and Wright were George moves.

      Brian “I Don’t Care If It’s Old I Care If It’s Good” Cashman was a George move; the decision to decline a trade offer of Randy Johnson for Mike Lowell and Hideki Irabu from Seattle in 1998 was a Cashman move, and the decision to offer Robinson Cano to Arizona as part of a package for Johnson six years later, in 2004 when Johnson was 41 years old, was also a Cashman move.

    4. Mr. October
      December 29th, 2013 | 11:18 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … Even Brown pitched a good game in the ALDS in 2004.

      @ Evan3457:
      What was the 39 year old Kevin Brown’s ERA in the 2004 ALCS? 21.60? But the team lost because it hit poorly with RISP, correct?

    5. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 3:28 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      … And Sidney Ponson, Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia…

      Colon and Garcia both pitched well for the Yankees, considering they weren’t big money acquisitions. Colon, signed for $900,000; 2.1 WAR. Freddy Garcia, signed for $1.5 million and $4 million, 3.1 WAR one year, 0.1 WAR the next. Yanks did well on both acquisitions. Next.

      Erickson, Lowe, and Park were not brought in as starters.
      Scott Erickson, Derek Lowe, and Chan Ho Park were starting pitchers brought in by Brian “I Don’t Care If It’s Old I Care If It’s Good”

      None of them started a game for the Yankees. Next.

      Cashman.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Johnson and Wright were George moves.
      Brian “I Don’t Care If It’s Old I Care If It’s Good” Cashman was a George move

      Well, that makes one true thing, even if it’s not really relevant.

      the decision to decline a trade offer of Randy Johnson for Mike Lowell and Hideki Irabu from Seattle in 1998 was a Cashman move

      The Yankees declined the trade. Cashman was not fully in charge in 1998, as you well know. Got a quote from Cashman saying he was responsible for turning down Johnson?

      Didn’t think so.

      and the decision to offer Robinson Cano to Arizona as part of a package for Johnson six years later, in 2004 when Johnson was 41 years old, was also a Cashman move.

      And it wasn’t a tough call at the time.

      But the start of Cano’s career was pedestrian. He didn’t put up a .300 average at any level until his fourth year as a pro – and just barely at .301 in 74 games in Class AA. His power numbers were lackluster. Baseball America never ranked him among its Top 100 prospects.

      “I don’t think anyone projected he’d ever be this good,’’ said Jim Callis, former editor of Baseball America. “He never had an .800 OPS in the minors, and there were questions whether his thick-legged frame would lead to a move away from second base. He could hit and he had a strong arm, but no one was projecting him to hit .310 with 25-plus homers per year and Gold Glove defense.’’

      Yet another testimony that no one regarded Cano as special at that time, not other teams’ scouts, not independent scouts, not the Yankees, and especially not the three teams who turned him down in trades. Next.

    6. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 3:31 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      … Even Brown pitched a good game in the ALDS in 2004.
      @ Evan3457:
      What was the 39 year old Kevin Brown’s ERA in the 2004 ALCS? 21.60? But the team lost because it hit poorly with RISP, correct?

      The Yanks went 5-32 with RISP in games 4 through 6, and lost by 2 runs, 1 run and 2 runs, respectively.

      But, whatever, Sybil.

    7. McMillan
      December 29th, 2013 | 3:51 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Yet another testimony that no one regarded Cano as special at that time, not other teams’ scouts, not independent scouts, not the Yankees, and especially not the three teams who turned him down in trades.

      Right… and it took Cano so many years to develop in Cashman’s own system after a proposed trade in 2004 for a 41-year old pitcher, didn’t it?

      Cano was competing for a batting title less than two years after Brian “I Wish My Wife Wasn’t Here” Cashman was trying to deal him to Arizona for Johnson; hitting .342 in the Major Leagues at the age of 23, but trading him to Arizona at the age of 21 for Johnson was the right move “at the time.”

      Next nonsensical post…

    8. McMillan
      December 29th, 2013 | 3:58 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yankees declined the trade. Cashman was not fully in charge in 1998, as you well know. Got a quote from Cashman saying he was responsible for turning down Johnson? Didn’t think so.
      Didn’t think so.

      “… Steinbrenner wanted his rookie GM to acquire Johnson, but Cashman passed despite Steinbrenner’s you’d-better-be-right warnings, Johnson landed in Houston…”

      @ Evan3457:
      http://deadspin.com/5845140/the-photos-of-yankees-gm-brian-cashman-that-broke-up-a-marriage

    9. Mr. October
      December 29th, 2013 | 4:04 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yankees declined the trade. Cashman was not fully in charge in 1998, as you well know. Got a quote from Cashman saying he was responsible for turning down Johnson?
      Didn’t think so.

      @ Evan3457:
      “… [Cashman] would probably have dealt Irabu and Ledee for Johnson to keep him from Cleveland and to enhance their chances for a second World Series title in three years. At that point in the season, Cashman said, ‘I felt we made the right decision for us. The team was firing on all cylinders. Plus the price tag was too high. We wanted Randy Johnson. A match couldn’t be made. I was comfortable with the decision…’”

      http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/06/sports/baseball-league-championship-series-notebook-johnson-s-exit-proves-cashman-right.html

      He did Meanwell.

    10. Kamieniecki
      December 29th, 2013 | 4:16 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yanks went 5-32 with RISP in games 4 through 6, and lost by 2 runs, 1 run and 2 runs, respectively.
      But, whatever, Sybil.

      … And playoff teams usually go 16-32 with RISP in most postseason series… the 2004 N.Y. Yankees didn’t lose to Boston in the A.L.C.S. because of Cashman’s failure to have a championship-caliber starting rotation in place only six years after inheriting a team that won 125 games in 1998 – no, Team Cashman fell in 2004 because of bad luck.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Didn’t think so.

      Right again…

    11. LMJ229
      December 29th, 2013 | 5:56 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan, why even bother to defend Cashman when it comes to pitching? It is clearly – and admittedly – his greatest weakness. He may have gotten some good short term gains out of guys like Colon and Garcia but he has had many more misses than hits. It’s more like a crap shoot than talent evaluation for him. That’s not what I want from my GM – I’d rather have a GM who is adept at assessing talent rather than having to rely on luck year after year.

    12. LMJ229
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:05 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Colon and Garcia both pitched well for the Yankees, considering they weren’t big money acquisitions. Colon, signed for $900,000; 2.1 WAR. Freddy Garcia, signed for $1.5 million and $4 million, 3.1 WAR one year, 0.1 WAR the next. Yanks did well on both acquisitions. Next.

      If he had so much faith in Colon, then why did he let him walk after 2011 – when he actually posted better numbers? The fact of the matter is, he didn’t have faith in Colon, he was just thrilled to have caught lightning in a bottle for a year and didn’t expect it to repeat itself. Trying to catch lightning in a bottle year after year is no way to put together a starting rotation.

    13. Kamieniecki
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:18 pm

      The simple reason Evan bothers is that he doesn’t understand the significance of pitching in this game; Mickey Rivers has a better handle on it.

    14. Mr. October
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:27 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      … I’d rather have a GM who is adept at assessing talent rather than having to rely on luck year after year.

      Rely on luck to do what? Win one American League pennant every 10 years??

    15. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:31 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Yet another testimony that no one regarded Cano as special at that time, not other teams’ scouts, not independent scouts, not the Yankees, and especially not the three teams who turned him down in trades.
      Right… and it took Cano so many years to develop in Cashman’s own system after a proposed trade in 2004 for a 41-year old pitcher, didn’t it?
      Cano was competing for a batting title less than two years after Brian “I Wish My Wife Wasn’t Here” Cashman was trying to deal him to Arizona for Johnson; hitting .342 in the Major Leagues at the age of 23, but trading him to Arizona at the age of 21 for Johnson was the right move “at the time.”
      Next nonsensical post…

      Absolutely irrelevant. Next idiotic rebuttal?

    16. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:44 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Yankees declined the trade. Cashman was not fully in charge in 1998, as you well know. Got a quote from Cashman saying he was responsible for turning down Johnson?
      Didn’t think so.
      @ Evan3457:
      “… [Cashman] would probably have dealt Irabu and Ledee for Johnson to keep him from Cleveland and to enhance their chances for a second World Series title in three years. At that point in the season, Cashman said, ‘I felt we made the right decision for us. The team was firing on all cylinders. Plus the price tag was too high. We wanted Randy Johnson. A match couldn’t be made. I was comfortable with the decision…’”
      http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/06/sports/baseball-league-championship-series-notebook-johnson-s-exit-proves-cashman-right.html
      He did Meanwell.

      1. It wasn’t Irabu and Lowell. It was Irabu, Lowell, and 2 other prospects.
      2. That 1998 Yankee team was in the process of winning 125 games and a title. Why would they overpay for anyone, given what was going on with the team at that time? He got into the discussions, as he said. to keep an AL contender from getting Johnson.

      When the talk went in Houston’s direction, he dropped out. He pitched brilliantly for the Astros…and helped them lose in the 1st round, losing both of his starts to…Kevin Brown, and Sterling Hitchcock.

      Johnson was an impending free agent. 6 years later, he hated his stay in NY. What makes you think Johnson would’ve re-signed with the Yanks? So, you have a team running away with the division. A great pitcher becomes available, but you already have the best pitching in the league. He’s already 34, and he becomes a free agent in two months. He’s a guy who hates the media attention. Under those circumstances, why would you overpay to get him, when if you really want him, you can sign him 3 months later? Why didn’t they, if George wanted him that badly?

      Because Johnson wouldn’t have stayed in NY. Trading for him wouldn’t have won them any more titles. It would have been a useless trade. And that’s the context of that decision.

      Call it a narrative, but you have to take EVERYTHING going on into consideration when discussing whether or not a deal should’ve been made.

      Six years later, you don’t have the best pitching in the league anymore. Your owner is still angry at you for not acquiring him 6 years before. He insists you trade for him instead of signing Carlos Beltran. And that’s how the Johnson trade finally happens.

    17. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:48 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Yanks went 5-32 with RISP in games 4 through 6, and lost by 2 runs, 1 run and 2 runs, respectively.
      But, whatever, Sybil.
      … And playoff teams usually go 16-32 with RISP in most postseason series

      They didn’t have to go 16-32. 8-32 would’ve been enough.

      the 2004 N.Y. Yankees didn’t lose to Boston in the A.L.C.S. because of Cashman’s failure to have a championship-caliber starting rotation in place only six years after inheriting a team that won 125 games in 1998 – no, Team Cashman fell in 2004 because of bad luck.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Didn’t make that claim either. Yet another in an endless series of strawmen by you. The Red Sox were probably the better team than the Yanks in 2004, despite winning 3 fewer games. The difference was just as large in runs scores as runs allowed. The Sox’ Pythagorean record was 7 games better.
      Didn’t think so.
      Right again…

    18. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:49 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan, why even bother to defend Cashman when it comes to pitching? It is clearly – and admittedly – his greatest weakness. He may have gotten some good short term gains out of guys like Colon and Garcia but he has had many more misses than hits. It’s more like a crap shoot than talent evaluation for him. That’s not what I want from my GM – I’d rather have a GM who is adept at assessing talent rather than having to rely on luck year after year.

      Not arguing that. Arguing the inclusion of Colon and Garcia as failures by Cashman. They weren’t.

    19. Evan3457
      December 29th, 2013 | 6:50 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The simple reason Evan bothers is that he doesn’t understand the significance of pitching in this game; Mickey Rivers has a better handle on it.

      I understand pitching is important. So is hitting.

    20. McMillan
      December 30th, 2013 | 12:30 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Not arguing that. Arguing the inclusion of Colon and Garcia as failures by Cashman. They weren’t.

      Starting pitching has been an abysmal failure in the Cashman Autoeroticism Era (2005-2013); one can only imagine what the problems in the bullpen would have been if the greatest closer of all-time was not on the roster in 1998.

    21. Kamieniecki
      December 30th, 2013 | 1:14 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      1. It wasn’t Irabu and Lowell. It was Irabu, Lowell, and 2 other prospects… Call it a narrative, but you have to take EVERYTHING going on into consideration when discussing whether or not a deal should’ve been made…

      Any suggestion a trade of Lowell and Irabu (and 0-2 prospects, depending on various information sources from Jul., 1998) for Randy Johnson should not necessarily have been made is nonsense, pure and simple. This was one of the biggest or most significant organizational failures of 1998-2013; i.e., not acquiring one of the most dominant starting pitchers of the period for two players subsequently used to acquire, directly or indirectly, Ed Yarnall and Jeff Weaver in the course of only 1-4 years. Nonsense.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I understand pitching is important. So is hitting.

      How many teams have advanced to the World Series since 1969 with league-average hitting? How many teams have advanced to the World Series since 1969 with league-average pitching? What did Gentry, Koosman, Seaver, Ryan, et al., do to the 109-win Baltimore Orioles “superteam,” as you refer to it, in 1969?

      How many Cashman teams had league-average pitching from 2005-2013? How many “superteams” has Cashman built from 2005-2014 with $190-240 mil spent on payroll in each season? What is Cashman’s starting rotation for 2014? Were any of Gentry, Koosman, Seaver, Ryan, et al. posted by a team in the Japan Pacific League or acquired from Dec., 1968-Sep., 1969?

    22. Mr. October
      December 30th, 2013 | 3:10 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      When the talk went in Houston’s direction, he dropped out. [Randy Johnson] pitched brilliantly for the Astros…and helped them lose in the 1st round, losing both of his starts to…Kevin Brown…

      @ Evan3457:
      Was Kevin Brown 39 years old in 1998? How many Cy Young Awards did Johnson win from 1998-2001? 4?Are we supposed to breath a collective sigh of relief because Johnson might’ve lost a game in the Yankees’ 11-2 1998 postseason? Is it possible the 2001 WS might’ve had a different outcome with Johnson pitching for the Yankees, and not the D’backs?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Not arguing that. Arguing the inclusion of Colon and Garcia as failures by Cashman. They weren’t.

      The failure wasn’t in the signing of Colon AND Garcia in 2011, the failure was in the necessity. This is analogous to Brian Cashman burning someone’s house down, and then saying it wasn’t a failure of his to show up with a bucket of water to throw on the burning cinders where the house once stood.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      How many teams have advanced to the World Series since 1969 with league-average pitching?

      @ Kamieniecki:
      Are the 2011 Cardinals the only team with below avg run prevention to win a WS? The 1982 Brewers and 1993 Phillies lost the WS.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      What did Gentry, Koosman, Seaver, Ryan, et al., do to the 109-win Baltimore Orioles “superteam,” as you refer to it, in 1969?

      The Mets were first in run prevention and second-to-last in offense…

    23. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 8:10 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And that’s how the Johnson trade finally happens.

      @ Evan3457:
      The 2004 Johnson trade happens because a person unqualified to be named the second-youngest G.M. in M.L.B. convinced an owner not to make the 1998 Johnson trade, and there were no Mike Mussinas, C.C. Sabathias, or Masahiro Tanakas available on the free agent market 2001-2004… That’s how the trade happened.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I understand pitching is important. So is hitting.

      @ Evan3457:
      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.

      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP. If the starting pitching had been stronger,
      the RISP numbers would be different, and likely better, too.

      Mr. October wrote:

      Are the 2011 Cardinals the only team with below avg run prevention to win a WS? The 1982 Brewers and 1993 Phillies lost the WS.

      @ Mr. October:
      I believe so… and there have been approx. 10 teams with below-average offenses to win a World Series since 1969.

    24. Mr. October
      December 31st, 2013 | 9:52 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … the [2013 World Series MVP] was a reliever… Mike Napoli seems a little more significant than Sanchez to me.

      It depends on how you look at it.

      It’s unfortunate the American League-leading 2005-2007 NYY offenses didn’t have a Mike Napoli who could get the team past an LDS… and the best offense in the AL from 2010-2012 didn’t have a Napoli who could get the team past the ALCS.

      It’s a certainty that an AL ERA-leading starter like Sanchez wouldn’t have made a difference on any those teams in place of all of any of the 39-44 year old starting pitchers or Freddy Garcia on Cashman’s pitching corps… those League-leading offenses needed a future HOFer like Napoli at 1st base, not a Teixeira. That was the problem.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      I believe so… and there have been approx. 10 teams with below-average offenses to win a World Series since 1969.

      That sounds about right: 1 team below avg in run prevention has won a WS in the last 45 years, and about 10 have won a WS with below avg offenses.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yanks went 5-32 with RISP in games 4 through 6, and lost by 2 runs, 1 run and 2 runs, respectively.

      Did any of the Yankees’ 2005-12 playoff opponents hit around .150 with RISP in games 5-7 of any series? What do teams typically hit in the playoffs with RISP against the best staffs in MLB?

    25. PHMDen
      December 31st, 2013 | 2:26 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yanks went 5-32 [.157] with RISP in games 4 through 6, and lost by 2 runs, 1 run and 2 runs, respectively.

      The Bengals went 3-16 (.188) with RISP in games 3 and 5 in the 2013 ALCS, and lost both games by 1 run. The same can be said for many, if not most, playoff series. The Bosox still won in 6 games, not 7, because the Sox were healthier, and Boston’s pitching was able to match Detroit’s and get to the soft underbelly of the Tigers – the bullpen, with the game within reach.

      Ortiz didn’t hit a slam off a 40 year old starter signed to a one year contract by Brian Cashman.

      If the Tigers or Sox start a Freddy Garcia or Bartolo Colon in the 2014 playoffs, it’ll be behind 3 very good to excellent starters, not behind 2 good starters and a halfway decent third.

    26. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 3:17 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Not arguing that. Arguing the inclusion of Colon and Garcia as failures by Cashman. They weren’t.
      Starting pitching has been an abysmal failure in the Cashman Autoeroticism Era (2005-2013); one can only imagine what the problems in the bullpen would have been if the greatest closer of all-time was not on the roster in 1998.

      And arguing that Colon and Garcia were failures is wrong. That’s all.

    27. McMillan
      December 31st, 2013 | 3:32 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And arguing that Colon and Garcia were failures is wrong. That’s all.

      @ Evan3457:
      For Brian Cashman, or a G.M. who spent $46 million on Kei Igawa, perhaps they weren’t failures in a sense. For any other G.M., having a $215 million team with a rotation of Sabathia, Burnett, Colon, Garcia, and Hughes is a failure.

    28. Mr. October
      December 31st, 2013 | 3:47 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And arguing that Colon and Garcia were failures is wrong. That’s all.

      Garcia had 0-1 record and 5.06 ERA in the 2011 LDS loss to Detroit with one of the best offenses in the AL behind him; he wasn’t a success.

    29. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 3:51 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Any suggestion a trade of Lowell and Irabu (and 0-2 prospects, depending on various information sources from Jul., 1998) for Randy Johnson should not necessarily have been made is nonsense, pure and simple.

      Any suggestion that the 1998 Yankees should’ve overpaid for Randy Johnson in 1998, two months from free agency is nonsense, pure and simple.

      This was one of the biggest or most significant organizational failures of 1998-2013; i.e., not acquiring one of the most dominant starting pitchers of the period for two players subsequently used to acquire, directly or indirectly, Ed Yarnall and Jeff Weaver in the course of only 1-4 years. Nonsense.

      Three separate decisions under three seperate contexts.
      Conflating as one failure is nonsense.

      How many teams have advanced to the World Series since 1969 with league-average hitting? How many teams have advanced to the World Series since 1969 with league-average pitching?

      As I’ve already pointed out, average ordinal in runs scored for World Series winners is 4.68, for runs allowed, 3.68. A slight advantage to the runs allowed side. Nothing more.

      What did Gentry, Koosman, Seaver, Ryan, et al., do to the 109-win Baltimore Orioles “superteam,” as you refer to it, in 1969?

      1. What did the same starting pitchers do to win the NLCS against the Braves? Nothing.
      2. Gentry was a mediocrity who had a decent rookie season.
      3. Ryan was not an important factor in the World Series.
      4. Seaver lost the only game the Mets lost in that Series.
      5. Koosman fell behind 3-0 in game 5, only to be bailed out by his offense.
      The 1969 Mets, hot AND lucky, upset a much, much better Orioles team. Attributing the upset solely to the 3 starters and Ryan, and giving no credit at all to Jones, Agee, Clendenon, and Swoboda is a paradigm of childish oversimplification. Clendenon, not Koosman (who won two games), was voted the MVP by the writers at the time.

      How many Cashman teams had league-average pitching from 2005-2013? How many “superteams” has Cashman built from 2005-2014 with $190-240 mil spent on payroll in each season? What is Cashman’s starting rotation for 2014? Were any of Gentry, Koosman, Seaver, Ryan, et al. posted by a team in the Japan Pacific League or acquired from Dec., 1968-Sep., 1969?

      1. Gentry was a 3rd round draft pick; his career was essentially mediocre, at best. In 1969, he was 13-12 for a team that won 100 games. He was knocked out in the 3rd inning of his only NLCS start. He pitched a good game against the Orioles in the World Series. He was a starter his 1st 5 seasons, was a career 45-48, and had an ERA+ of 103. Hardly a dominant starter.
      2. Koosman signed with the Mets as an amateur free agent in 1964. This was the last pre-draft year. That system doesn’t exist anymore. I would think that if no draft existed, the Yankees would be signing good pitchers with their money advantages.
      3. Seaver was signed by the Braves out of college in 1966, an illegal signing under the rules. The comissioner, rather than putting Seaver back in the next amateur draft, arranged for a lottery for his rights in which any team other than the Braves were allowed to participate, if they were will to match the contract the Braves signed Seaver to. The Mets won that drawing, and with it, the rights to Seaver.
      4. The Mets were very smart to draft Nolan Ryan in the 12th round of the first amateur draft. They developed him and got him to the majors. He pitched decently for them, and he contributed to the title in 1969. Then they got tired of waiting for him to harness his control, and in what is considered one of the most famous blunder trades in history, traded Ryan and 3 other prospects for a declining Jim Fregosi.

      Summing that up, they were lucky to be handed the rights to Seaver, Koosman was a free agent signing after high school and service in the Army, they were smart to draft and develop Ryan and stupid to trade him for a tiny fraction of his real value, and Gentry was a mediocrity.

      By the way, the 2009-2012 Yankees were 3rd, 5th, 3rd and 4th in the league in runs allowed, and if you adjust for the fact that the new Yankee Stadium plays like a hitters’ park, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd and 4th in ERA+ in those four years. By way of comparison, they were 5th, 3rd, 4th and 4th in ERA+ from 2000-2003. They were 1st and 2nd in ERA+ in 1998 and 1999, but they were also 1st in 1997, when they lost in the 1st round, and 5th in 1996, when they won the title. In the 2004-2008 era they were below the league average in 2004 and 2005, and slightly above it in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

      So your implied narrative holds for 2005-2008, but has no bearing on 2009-2012. In 2013, the team pitching was holding up well through the beginning of August, but the pitching finally collapsed under the weight of trying to carry the dead offense, especially Kuroda and the whole bullpen.

    30. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 4:19 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      How many Cy Young Awards did Johnson win from 1998-2001? 4?

      Not relevant. Yanks had the best pitching in the league, and didn’t need to overpay for Johnson, once they knew he was going to the NL.

      Are we supposed to breath a collective sigh of relief because Johnson might’ve lost a game in the Yankees’ 11-2 1998 postseason?

      No. The point being that the 1998 team didn’t need him. The 1999 team didn’t need him. The 2000 team didn’t need him.

      Is it possible the 2001 WS might’ve had a different outcome with Johnson pitching for the Yankees, and not the D’backs?

      It’s possible. It’s completely unpredictable beforehand, however.

      When the 2001 post-season started, Johnson’s lifetime post-season record stood at: 2-6, 3.71 ERA. He was regarded at the time as overrated as a post-season factor. At 33, he pitched badly for the Mariners against the O’s in losing the ALDS. At 34, he pitched well for the Astros in the NLDS, but not well enough. At 35, he got hammered in his one game for the D’backs against the Mets, helping the D’backs to lose that NLDS. At 36, the D’back were out of the playoffs. At 38, he got hammered in his only start in the NLDS, and the D’backs got swept.

      The one and only time in his career Johnson was an unqualified post-season success was 2001. His lifetime post-season record stands at 7-9 with a 3.50 ERA. His record in two ALCS is very good. He pitched brilliantly in his one World Series. But his record in eight division series is bad, terrible when you consider his overall lifetime record and ability. In Division Series, he was 2-8 with a 4.85 ERA.

      The Yanks won it all in 1998, 1999, 2000. He would’nt have made any difference then. In 2001, if you start Randy Johnson, then you’re not starting Mussina or Clemens or Hernandez or Pettitte. I suppose if the Yanks were a collective of mystic seers, they might have been able to forecast that Pettitte would pitch terribly in game 6, and started Johnson over him, or maybe for Mussina in game 1. Aside from Pettitte, the Yanks’ problem in that series were that they didn’t hit, except when Kim was in to close. And it wasn’t just Schilling and Johnson; they didn’t hit Anderson or Batista, either.

      And in spite of that, in spite of being severely outhit, in spite of everything, they went to the bottom of the 9th of game 7 with the lead and a chance to win their 4th title in a row.

      =========================================
      And all of the above assumes that Johnson re-signs with the Yankees after being traded to them. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn’t. The Yanks didn’t go all-out for him in the offseason of 1998, when they didn’t have to “overpay” in a trade. Think about that for awhile.

      The Yanks’ rotation in the 1998 playoffs was Wells, El Duque, Cone and Pettitte. Which one of those four does Johnson replace in the rotation?

      In 1999, it’s Clemens instead of Wells. Which one does he replace?
      In 2000, if they have Johnson, they don’t trade for Neagle, I suppose. But by then, it’s 2 years too late.

      The failure wasn’t in the signing of Colon AND Garcia in 2011, the failure was in the necessity. This is analogous to Brian Cashman burning someone’s house down, and then saying it wasn’t a failure of his to show up with a bucket of water to throw on the burning cinders where the house once stood.

      The A’s found it necessary to sign Colon the next season. Is that Billy Beane’s failure? The Braves, masters of pitching and pitchers, found it necessary to buy Garcia from the Orioles. Is that a failure of Wren? They even gave him a start in the post-season. Is that a failure, too? He even pitched a good game and got a no-decision? Is that also a failure?

      The Mets were first in run prevention and second-to-last in offense…

      The Mets were 9th in runs scored, but only 0.15 runs per game below the league average. The 2006 Cards were 5th in runs allowed, but only 0.12 runs per game below the league average. That 2006 team was 12th in the NL in starting pitcher ERA, 0.13 higher than the league average.

    31. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 4:46 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Any suggestion that the 1998 Yankees should’ve overpaid for Randy Johnson in 1998, two months from free agency is nonsense, pure and simple.

      Irabu and Lowell were an overpayment for Randy Johnson?
      @ Evan3457:
      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.
      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP. If the starting pitching had been stronger,
      the RISP numbers would be different, and likely better, too.

    32. Mr. October
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:00 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Yanks had the best pitching in the league, and didn’t need to overpay for Johnson, once they knew he was going to the NL.

      The Yankees didn’t need a HOF pitcher who would win Cy Young Awards in each of the next four years? Nonsense.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yanks’ rotation in the 1998 playoffs was Wells, El Duque, Cone and Pettitte. Which one of those four does Johnson replace in the rotation?

      Irabu.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      When the 2001 post-season started, Johnson’s lifetime post-season record stood at: 2-6, 3.71 ERA. He was regarded at the time as overrated as a post-season factor. At 33, he pitched badly for the Mariners against the O’s in losing the ALDS. At 34, he pitched well for the Astros in the NLDS, but not well enough. At 35, he got hammered in his one game for the D’backs against the Mets, helping the D’backs to lose that NLDS. At 36, the D’back were out of the playoffs. At 38, he got hammered in his only start in the NLDS, and the D’backs got swept.
      The one and only time in his career Johnson was an unqualified post-season success was 2001. His lifetime post-season record stands at 7-9 with a 3.50 ERA. His record in two ALCS is very good. He pitched brilliantly in his one World Series. But his record in eight division series is bad, terrible when you consider his overall lifetime record and ability. In Division Series, he was 2-8 with a 4.85 ERA.
      The Yanks won it all in 1998, 1999, 2000. He would’nt have made any difference then. In 2001, if you start Randy Johnson, then you’re not starting Mussina or Clemens or Hernandez or Pettitte. I suppose if the Yanks were a collective of mystic seers, they might have been able to forecast that Pettitte would pitch terribly in game 6, and started Johnson over him, or maybe for Mussina in game 1. Aside from Pettitte, the Yanks’ problem in that series were that they didn’t hit, except when Kim was in to close. And it wasn’t just Schilling and Johnson; they didn’t hit Anderson or Batista, either.

      Nonsense.

      @ Evan3457:
      FYI:
      Mr. October wrote:

      … 1 team below avg in run prevention has won a WS in the last 45 years…

    33. PHMDen
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:14 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Any suggestion that the 1998 Yankees should’ve overpaid for Randy Johnson in 1998, two months from free agency is nonsense, pure and simple.

      If Johnson refused to negotiate a contract extension, possibly. But Johnson wanted to pitch in New York, and the Yankees made no effort to sign him. And in the end, the Yankees got nothing for Lowell anyway.

    34. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:19 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      The 2004 Johnson trade happens because a person unqualified to be named the second-youngest G.M. in M.L.B. convinced an owner not to make the 1998 Johnson trade, and there were no Mike Mussinas, C.C. Sabathias, or Masahiro Tanakas available on the free agent market 2001-2004… That’s how the trade happened.

      Nope.

      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.

      So, in other words, the Yankees 1-3 starting pitching was bad in the post-season because it was bad in the post-season. Brilliant.

      And again, runs scored by a team’s offense and RBI by a team’s offense correlate very slightly higher than #1-3 starter ERA.

      As anyone with intellgence would expect, because runs represent all the runs scored by a team (or conversely, allowed by its opponents), and RBI represents 95% of those runs, whereas earned runs represents about 88% of those runs. The closer a statistical measure comes to measuring runs scored (or allowed) the more reflective it will be of a team’s wins and losses. That’s why BAVG and OPS don’t correlate as well, and triples and stolen bases correlate much more poorly.

      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP.

      In the 2005 loss to the Angels, they were 10-45 (.222) with RISP, 7-38 (.184) after the game 1 victory. One of the 7 was Sheffield’s infield single with 2 outs in the 9th with runners at 1st and 2nd that scored nobody.
      In the 2006 loss to the Tigers, they were 5-27 (.185) with RISP, 2-20 (.100) in the 3 straight losses after the 1st game.
      In the 2007 loss to the Indians, they were 6-28 (.214) with RISP, 2-18 (.111) in the 3 losses in games 1, 2, and 4.
      I mean, how can any fan who claims to hate A-Rod as much as you do not remember how bad those teams were in the post-season with RISP, how bad A-Rod (and others) were in those spots? Sure they had some awful starts in those series (Wang was horrible in that 2007 series, for example), but claimning it was the starting pitching and only the starting pitching, is oversimplistic and juvenile.

      If the starting pitching had been stronger, the RISP numbers would be different, and likely better, too.

      Well, no, not always. Of the 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 title-winning teams, the 2000 team had the higher BAVG with RISP (.257) and the 1996 team had the lowest .189. But the 1998 team had the best pitching of all of them (it led the AL in runs allowed, ERA, and ERA+), and during that post-season, in which the team went 11-2, it hit .208 with RISP. So this new theory of yours is also wrong.
      Mr. October wrote:
      Are the 2011 Cardinals the only team with below avg run prevention to win a WS? The 1982 Brewers and 1993 Phillies lost the WS.
      @ Mr. October:
      I believe so… and there have been approx. 10 teams with below-average offenses to win a World Series since 1969.

      Your belief is not correct; the 1987 Twins were below league average in runs allowed. The 1992 Jays were slightly below the league average in runs allowed per game, but finished 9th in the AL as a team in that category. This is matched by the 2003 Marlins who finished 8th in runs scored per game, but were actually above the league average by 0.03 runs per game.

      I find 8 title-winning teams (out of 45) who were actually below the league average in runs scored per game, and 2 were were above the league average in runs allowed per game.

      The 1987 Twins were a true miracle team, finishing below the league average in both runs scored per game and runs allowed per game. They actually allowed more runs than they scored, taking advantage of a balanced, but weak, AL West Division to barely get into the playoffs. They would’ve finished 5th in the AL East that year, proving once again that the modern playoff system, with 2, and then 3, and now up to 4 rounds, allows a weaker team to win it all. The same thing almost happened 14 years earlier to the 1973 Mets, but fortunately, a great A’s team stopped them 1 game short of a title.

      One would expect teams that are below average in hitting to win the title more often than teams that are below average in pitching in an era of unusually strong offense, because if offense is much stronger overall, you can be slightly below average, and still be good enouogh for strong pitching to carry the day in a short series.

      I would expect there would be far fewer teams of each type that would even make the World Series in the days before multiple rounds of post-season series. Nearly all teams weak in one of the two would fail to win the title by failing to win the pennant. And so it is: there are very few teams below average at either to make the World Series, much less win it. A quick scan reveals the 1963 Dodgers, 1924 Senators, and 1916 Red Sox (below average offense), and the 1964 Cards and 1913 Athletics (above average runs allowed). Even the Hitless Wonder White Sox of 1906 were slightly above average in runs scored per game. I might’ve missed one or two, I didn’t check every single champion.

      That’s a total of 5 such “weak” champions in 64 post-seasons, as opposed to 10 of them in 44 post-seasons since. This is yet another proof that teams weak in one area and strong in another have a much, much easier time now that before the multi-round post-season.

    35. McMillan
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:32 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The A’s found it necessary to sign Colon the next season. Is that Billy Beane’s failure? The Braves, masters of pitching and pitchers, found it necessary to buy Garcia from the Orioles. Is that a failure of Wren? They even gave him a start in the post-season. Is that a failure, too? He even pitched a good game and got a no-decision? Is that also a failure?

      If either team had a $215-20 million payroll, and had spent approx. $1.25-50 Billion in payroll in the preceding 6-7 years, then the answer to your question is “yes” – it would have been a failure to have been in a position of having to sign either pitcher to be a no. 3 or no. 4 starter. Next.

    36. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:36 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It depends on how you look at it.
      blah blah blah

      Clutch hitting being the point. Napoli had at least two crucial hits in the series.

      It’s a certainty that an AL ERA-leading starter like Sanchez wouldn’t have made a difference on any those teams in place of all of any of the 39-44 year old starting pitchers or Freddy Garcia on Cashman’s pitching corps…

      Pretty hysterical stuff coming from someone who just posited the theory that regular season record shouldn’t be looked at in projecting post-season performance.

      In the actual event, 2013 Sanchez did nothing to help the Tigers win the ALDS vs. Oakland, getting pasted in game 3, and getting bailed out by Verlander and Scherzer, and in the ALCS, despite a brilliant game 1, his mediocre performance in game 5 turned the series in Boston’s favor. He certainly did a good job assuring the Tigers didn’t win the pennant, so, in your point of view, he would fit right in with Cashman’s “failures”.

      those League-leading offenses needed a future HOFer like Napoli at 1st base, not a Teixeira. That was the problem.

      Which, of course, has nothing to do with the 2004 Yankees, the 2005 Yankees, the 2006 Yankees, the 2007 Yankees, the 2008 Yankees, or even the 2009 Yankees.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Yanks went 5-32 with RISP in games 4 through 6, and lost by 2 runs, 1 run and 2 runs, respectively.
      Did any of the Yankees’ 2005-12 playoff opponents hit around .150 with RISP in games 5-7 of any series? What do teams typically hit in the playoffs with RISP against the best staffs in MLB?

      I don’t know what it is across a long stretch of post-seasons, but in the 2013 post-season, losing teams hit 60-284 (.211) with RISP, which isn’t good, but these are ALL teams that lost, they don’t include the Red Sox, the best hitting team in MLB, which won all of its series, and it’s a damn sight better than 5-32 (.156).

    37. PHMDen
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:40 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      “… Run production as a whole hasn’t had much relationship with playoff success. Neither have any of the individual offensive metrics… There is a lot more to look at when it comes to pitching and defense, though…” – Nate Silver and Dayn Perry.

    38. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:45 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      So, in other words, the Yankees 1-3 starting pitching was bad in the post-season because it was bad in the post-season. Brilliant.

      That’s not what was written:

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.
      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP. If the starting pitching had been stronger,
      the RISP numbers would be different, and likely better, too.

      @ Evan3457:
      Do you have these numbers? What are they?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I mean, how can any fan who claims to hate A-Rod as much as you do…

      I don’t hate Alex Rodriguez and never claimed to.

    39. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:47 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Bosox still won in 6 games, not 7, because the Sox were healthier,

      That’s valid. With a healthy Cabrera, the Tigers might well win the series.

      and Boston’s pitching was able to match Detroit’s

      Not really. The Sox had two good starts, two terrible ones, and twoi decent starts. The Tigers got four outstanding starts, and 2 so-so starts, and even in the 2nd so-so start, Scherzer was brilliant through 6 innings. The Tigers went 6 for 6 in quality starts, the Red Sox, 4 for 6. The Tigers dominated the starting pitching matchup, 2.06 ERA to 4.71…and still lost in 6 games.

      and get to the soft underbelly of the Tigers – the bullpen, with the game within reach.

      As opposed to the Red Sox bullpen, which gave up 1 earned run in 21 innings, (1 earned run in 15 innings not pitched by Uehara.) The Red Sox beat the Tigers by getting 2 great starts, and 2 starts decent enough for their bullpen, their clutch hitting and the Tigers’ failing pen to carry them through, and by their offense making Scherzer work hard enough to get him out of both of his starts, even though he pitched great in the 1st, and decently enough in the 2nd.
      Ortiz didn’t hit a slam off a 40 year old starter signed to a one year contract by Brian Cashman.
      If the Tigers or Sox start a Freddy Garcia or Bartolo Colon in the 2014 playoffs, it’ll be behind 3 very good to excellent starters, not behind 2 good starters and a halfway decent third.

    40. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:51 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Irabu and Lowell were an overpayment for Randy Johnson?

      Irabu and Lowell and 2 or 3 other prospects ARE and overpayment for only 2 guaranteed months of Randy Johnson, if your rotation already has David Wells, David Cone, Andy Pettitte and El Duque Hernandez. If they wanted Randy Johnson, they could’ve gone all-out to sign him as a free agent after the season, when it wouldn’t have cost 4 or 5 players. They didn’t need him in 1998. There was no need to make a huge trade for him as soon as it was certain he was being traded to the NL. They made no serious effort to sign him after the season, they had just won a dominant title.

      So, yes, trading all that for Johnson is an overpayment, and one that would not have helped them win any more titles, except, possibly 2001, and that only by not signing Mussina, or by replacing Pettitte in the World Series rotation.
      @ Evan3457:
      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.
      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP. If the starting pitching had been stronger,
      the RISP numbers would be different, and likely better, too.

    41. PHMDen
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:52 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Your belief is not correct; the 1987 Twins were below league average in runs allowed. The 1992 Jays were slightly below the league average in runs allowed per game, but finished 9th in the AL as a team in that category. This is matched by the 2003 Marlins who finished 8th in runs scored per game, but were actually above the league average by 0.03 runs per game.

      The 1987 Twins weren’t below average in run prevention, and neither were the 1992 Jays. The 2006 Cardinals were below average, not the 2011 Cardinals, but this is 1 team to win a title out of the hundreds playoff teams in the last 45 yrs.

    42. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 5:57 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Yanks had the best pitching in the league, and didn’t need to overpay for Johnson, once they knew he was going to the NL.
      The Yankees didn’t need a HOF pitcher who would win Cy Young Awards in each of the next four years? Nonsense.

      No, they didn’t. It would’ve a ridiculous misuse of assets to trade 5 guys to add 2 months of Randy Johnson to a team with already outstanding starting pitching crusing easily to a division title. Absurd point by you. That they later traded Lowell for 3 pitchers who didn’t pan out is irrelevant to the decision not to waste the talent to trade for Johnson at the time. They later got both Jake Westbrook AND Ted Lilly for Irabu alone. THAT is a good use of talent.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Yanks’ rotation in the 1998 playoffs was Wells, El Duque, Cone and Pettitte. Which one of those four does Johnson replace in the rotation?
      Irabu.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      When the 2001 post-season started, Johnson’s lifetime post-season record stood at: 2-6, 3.71 ERA. He was regarded at the time as overrated as a post-season factor. At 33, he pitched badly for the Mariners against the O’s in losing the ALDS. At 34, he pitched well for the Astros in the NLDS, but not well enough. At 35, he got hammered in his one game for the D’backs against the Mets, helping the D’backs to lose that NLDS. At 36, the D’back were out of the playoffs. At 38, he got hammered in his only start in the NLDS, and the D’backs got swept.
      The one and only time in his career Johnson was an unqualified post-season success was 2001. His lifetime post-season record stands at 7-9 with a 3.50 ERA. His record in two ALCS is very good. He pitched brilliantly in his one World Series. But his record in eight division series is bad, terrible when you consider his overall lifetime record and ability. In Division Series, he was 2-8 with a 4.85 ERA.
      The Yanks won it all in 1998, 1999, 2000. He would’nt have made any difference then. In 2001, if you start Randy Johnson, then you’re not starting Mussina or Clemens or Hernandez or Pettitte. I suppose if the Yanks were a collective of mystic seers, they might have been able to forecast that Pettitte would pitch terribly in game 6, and started Johnson over him, or maybe for Mussina in game 1. Aside from Pettitte, the Yanks’ problem in that series were that they didn’t hit, except when Kim was in to close. And it wasn’t just Schilling and Johnson; they didn’t hit Anderson or Batista, either.
      Nonsense.

      Absolutely everything in my above quote is relevant, and true.
      Your calling it nonsense is putrid, pathetic, panic-stricken drivel.
      You have no answer for any of it, so you don’t even try.
      That answer beats you like the metaphorical red-headed stepchild, for all to see.
      You lose, Chump King. But you do win another…

      http://cdn.mrcostumes.com/images/pz/1618/Clown-Shoes-5120.jpg
      @ Evan3457:
      FYI:
      Mr. October wrote:
      … 1 team below avg in run prevention has won a WS in the last 45 years…

      Nope, it’s 2, the 1987 Twins, and 3 if you count the 1992 Jays, who finished 9th in the AL in runs allowed.

    43. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:01 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Irabu and Lowell and 2 or 3 other prospects ARE and overpayment for only 2 guaranteed months of Randy Johnson…

      @ Evan3457:
      The trade proposal wasn’t “Irabu and Lowell and 2 or 3 other prospects,” it was less, and no attempt was made to sign Johnson to a contract. The Mariners offered Johnson to New York for Irabu and Lowell, and according to only some reports a third prospect, and the Yankees did not attempt to sign Johnson. What was Team Cashman’s contract offer to Johnson when he was a Mariner and Seattle was agreeable to trading him for Irabu and Lowell? What was the contract offer that Johnson turned down?

    44. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:01 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Any suggestion that the 1998 Yankees should’ve overpaid for Randy Johnson in 1998, two months from free agency is nonsense, pure and simple.
      If Johnson refused to negotiate a contract extension, possibly. But Johnson wanted to pitch in New York, and the Yankees made no effort to sign him. And in the end, the Yankees got nothing for Lowell anyway.

      I don’t know Johnson wanted to pitch in New York. He didn’t sign with them. The Yanks didn’t make a full effort to sign him, probably because they didn’t see the need to spend the money, having 4 dominant starters on staff. Instead, they traded Wells for Clemens, and still had four dominant starters. And won 2 more titles. And nearly a third, against the team that did sign Johnson.

      The got nothing for Lowell, but:
      1) They got Lilly and Westbrook for Irabu.
      2) The Mariners wanted 2 or 3 other prospects in the deal.
      3) The fact that they later got nothing for Lowell has nothing to do with the decision not to trade him for Johnson. Those are separate decisions, taken 6 months apart, and under different circumstances.

    45. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:03 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      “… Run production as a whole hasn’t had much relationship with playoff success. Neither have any of the individual offensive metrics… There is a lot more to look at when it comes to pitching and defense, though…” – Nate Silver and Dayn Perry.

      The average ordinal of runs scored for title winners is 4.68, for runs allowed 3.68. They are within one placement of each other, giving a small, but not dominant edge to pitching.

    46. PHMDen
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:05 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Nope, it’s 2, the 1987 Twins, and 3 if you count the 1992 Jays, who finished 9th in the AL in runs allowed.

      Incorrect. The 1987 Twins and 1992 Jays were NOT below average in run prevention; the Cardinals team was.

    47. McMillan
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:09 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The average ordinal of runs scored for title winners is 4.68, for runs allowed 3.68. They are within one placement of each other, giving a small, but not dominant edge to pitching.

      Pathetic. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Yanks didn’t make a full effort to sign [Johnson]…

      Bingo.

    48. PHMDen
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:10 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The average ordinal of runs scored for title winners is 4.68, for runs allowed 3.68. They are within one placement of each other, giving a small, but not dominant edge to pitching.

      @ Evan3457:
      You think know more about baseball than Messrs. Silver and Perry?

    49. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:17 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      2) The Mariners wanted 2 or 3 other prospects in the deal.

      False. Irabu and Lowell, and Ryan Bradley according to some reports.

      @ Evan3457:
      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.
      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP.

    50. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:19 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      That’s not what was written:
      Kamieniecki wrote:
      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.

      You keep asserting this; it’s still wrong every time you do.
      In 2005, the critical bad starts were by Mussina and Wang, the Yanks #1 and #2 starters that season.
      In 2007, the critical bad starts were by Wang and Clemens, 2 for Wang. Wang was the Yanks’ ace that season, tied for 2nd in the league in wins, and 13th in ERA and 10th in WAR for pitchers. Clemens pitched poorly in game 3, but it was the only game the Yanks won in that series.
      In 2011, the Yanks’ notional ace, Sabathia, had to leave game 1 because of rain, he was mediocre at best in game 4. Nova, who pitched well in relief of Sabathia in game 1, had to leave game 5 with an injury. Garcia, the Yanks’ 3rd starter, pitched as well as CC did in game 4 in his turn in game 2, but tired in the 6th. The best start of the series turned out to be by their #4 starter, Burnett.
      In 2012, the ace, Sabathia, got knocked around. The #2 starter, Pettitte, pitched well. The #3 starter, Kuroda, also pitched a good game. The #4 starter, Hughes, was pitched decently until he left with an injury after the 3rd inning. The worst start, by far, was Sabathia’s.

      So, of the 6 Yankee post-season failure since 2005, your theories fail in 4 of the 6.

      Do you have these numbers? What are they?

      Posted them for the Dynasty teams above. Posted them for 2013 losing teams only, above.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      I mean, how can any fan who claims to hate A-Rod as much as you do…

      I don’t hate Alex Rodriguez and never claimed to.

      OK…hmmm…in thinking about it, Johnson’s post-season record is the pitching analogue of A-Rod’s. Decent, but far below his regular season record, with one overwhelmingly dominant post-season to lead his team to a title, and a couple of decent post-season series sprinkled in with a majority of failed efforts.

    51. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:22 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      2) The Mariners wanted 2 or 3 other prospects in the deal.
      False. Irabu and Lowell, and Ryan Bradley according to some reports.

      One of three including Bradley, according to the article you yourself cited.

      @ Evan3457:
      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.
      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP.

      You can post this as many times as your want. I’ll still reply that it’s vastly overstated at best, and 99 44/100th% drivel at worst.

    52. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:22 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The average ordinal of runs scored for title winners is 4.68, for runs allowed 3.68. They are within one placement of each other, giving a small, but not dominant edge to pitching.
      @ Evan3457:
      You think know more about baseball than Messrs. Silver and Perry?

      Appeal to authority.
      I’ll match Silver and Perry against Beane. Thanks for nothing.

    53. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:24 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The average ordinal of runs scored for title winners is 4.68, for runs allowed 3.68. They are within one placement of each other, giving a small, but not dominant edge to pitching.
      Pathetic. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Uberpathetic. Disprove the statistic or shut up.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Yanks didn’t make a full effort to sign [Johnson]…
      Bingo.

      Why?
      If Johnson was exactly what the Yankees needed, why does it make sense for them to trade Irabu, Lowell and at least one other player, and THEN re-sign him, as opposed to just signing him.

      Answer obvious to everyone but you Sybil: Because they didn’t need Johnson at the time, and trading for him would’ve been a waste of resources.

    54. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:25 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Posted them for the Dynasty teams above. Posted them for 2013 losing teams only, above.

      No you didn’t. You don’t have these numbers; all you have is summary information from BaseballReference.com or Fangraphs.com.

      F.Y.I.:

      http://psychiatrists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_search.php

    55. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:29 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Nope, it’s 2, the 1987 Twins, and 3 if you count the 1992 Jays, who finished 9th in the AL in runs allowed.
      Incorrect. The 1987 Twins and 1992 Jays were NOT below average in run prevention; the Cardinals team was.

      Incorrect. The Twins were 9 in the AL in runs allowed, 10th in the AL in ERA, and at 3.98, their runs allowed per game was worse than league average, which was 3.90 per game.

      As I myself mentioned, the Jays were slightly better than league average in runs allowed per game, but finished 9th in a 14-team AL in runs allowed.

      So you’re not only wrong, but arrogantly wrong. And that entitles you to yet another…

      http://i01.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v1/913714681_1/-font-b-Clown-b-font-cosplay-font-b-shoes-b-font-Boots-font-b-Custom.jpg

      Way to go, Sybil!

    56. Evan3457
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:32 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Posted them for the Dynasty teams above. Posted them for 2013 losing teams only, above.
      No you didn’t. You don’t have these numbers; all you have is summary information from BaseballReference.com or Fangraphs.com.

      I posted exactly what I said I posted. Stop lying, Sybil.

      F.Y.I.:
      http://psychiatrists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_search.php

      F.Y.I.
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-blame/201204/how-does-denial-actually-work

      Denial may not be a river in Egypt, but it is your single most important “argument” tactic. Read up and learn.

    57. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:40 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      You only make yourself look more foolish arguing that Team Cashman made the right decision not attempting to sign Randy Johnson in 1998, when Seattle would have accepted only Irabu and Lowell, or Irabu, Lowell, and Bradley for him and you claim the Mariners wanted five players for Johnson, which is not true – Seattle wanted only Irabu and Lowell according to at least one report. Once again, your ignorance of this game, and the significance of pitching in terms of postseason success, is quite apparent.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      If Johnson was exactly what the Yankees needed, why does it make sense for them to trade Irabu, Lowell and at least one other player, and THEN re-sign him, as opposed to just signing him.

      You’re an idiot. The Yankees could have made the trade contingent on the signing of Johnson, and did not.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Appeal to authority.
      I’ll match Silver and Perry against Beane. Thanks for nothing.

      When has Beane asserted something contradictory to what was posted, genius?

      @ Evan3457:
      If you break down Team Cashman’s reg. season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers (e.g. E.R.A.), and all 1995-2013 regular season nos. 1-3 starters’ postseason numbers, for the purpose of comparison with both nos. 4-5 starters and the starters of other playoff teams, you would have a better understanding of the significance of starting pitching, and it’s stronger statistical correlation to winning championships than offense, in the postseason; general summary regular season information from BaseballReference.com, or Fangraphs.com, is useless to understanding the true importance of pitching in the postseason.
      Average-to-below average postseason starting pitching quality and depth is the reason this team played .490 postseason baseball 2005-2013; not poor hitting with RISP.

      Let me know when you’ve compiled the information…

    58. PHMDen
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:44 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Incorrect. The Twins were 9 in the AL in runs allowed, 10th in the AL in ERA, and at 3.98, their runs allowed per game was worse than league average, which was 3.90 per game.
      As I myself mentioned, the Jays were slightly better than league average in runs allowed per game, but finished 9th in a 14-team AL in runs allowed.

      Run prevention encompasses more than this.

    59. McMillan
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:47 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The Yankees could have made the trade contingent on the signing of Johnson, and did not.

      @ Kamieniecki:
      LOL – You mean you can do that??

    60. McMillan
      December 31st, 2013 | 6:53 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Because they didn’t need Johnson at the time, and trading for him would’ve been a waste of resources.


      New York didn’t need a Hall of Fame left-handed starting pitcher “at the time,” because Team Cashman already had five Hall of Fame pitchers in its rotation, including Irabu… And trading Mike Lowell for Ed Yarnall was not a waste of resources months later…

      LOL.

    61. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 7:24 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Have you averaged the 2013 statistics for Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte, and Hughes to come up with a projection for Tanaka’s numbers in 2014 yet?

      http://waswatching.com/2010/03/30/the-javier-vazquez-question/

    62. Kamieniecki
      December 31st, 2013 | 7:35 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      In 2005, the critical bad starts were by Mussina and Wang, the Yanks #1 and #2 starters that season.
      In 2007, the critical bad starts were by Wang and Clemens, 2 for Wang. Wang was the Yanks’ ace that season, tied for 2nd in the league in wins, and 13th in ERA and 10th in WAR for pitchers. Clemens pitched poorly in game 3, but it was the only game the Yanks won in that series.
      In 2011, the Yanks’ notional ace, Sabathia, had to leave game 1 because of rain, he was mediocre at best in game 4. Nova, who pitched well in relief of Sabathia in game 1, had to leave game 5 with an injury. Garcia, the Yanks’ 3rd starter, pitched as well as CC did in game 4 in his turn in game 2, but tired in the 6th. The best start of the series turned out to be by their #4 starter, Burnett.
      In 2012, the ace, Sabathia, got knocked around. The #2 starter, Pettitte, pitched well. The #3 starter, Kuroda, also pitched a good game. The #4 starter, Hughes, was pitched decently until he left with an injury after the 3rd inning. The worst start, by far, was Sabathia’s.

      @ Evan3457:
      You just don’t get it; you’re clueless and I’m not going to explain it to you further… Happy New Year.

    63. McMillan
      December 31st, 2013 | 9:31 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, they didn’t. It would’ve a ridiculous misuse of assets to trade 5 guys to add 2 months of Randy Johnson to a team with already outstanding starting pitching crusing easily to a division title. Absurd point by you.

      “…Doug Melvin, the Texas Rangers’ general manager, said one of the team’s coaches received a telephone call from a friend who, he said, was in position to know these things and that the friend had said that Johnson and Timlin were going to the Yankees for Irabu, Ledee, Lowell and Bush. In addition, the Yankees were said to be signing Johnson to a three-year contract extension at $12 million a year…”

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Aside from Pettitte, the Yanks’ problem in that series were that they didn’t hit, except when Kim was in to close.

      Kim Brennan?

    64. Mr. October
      January 1st, 2014 | 10:22 am

      Stick Michael coveted Randy Johnson, and had the young pitching to acquire him in 1993, when Johnson was only 29:

      “… The Yankees probably had the best chance of giving the Mariners what they wanted for Johnson – promising young pitchers , but they abandoned their pursuit… According to the Mariners’ general manager… Gene Michael told him, ‘It didn’t look like Mr. Steinbrenner would approve a large contract for a pitcher…’

      ‘Randy wouldn’t have minded going to New York,’ his agent said…”

      http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/10/sports/baseball-yankees-newfound-thrift-costs-them-randy-johnson.html

    65. Mr. October
      January 1st, 2014 | 10:56 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      OK…hmmm…in thinking about it, Johnson’s post-season record is the pitching analogue of A-Rod’s. Decent, but far below his regular season record, with one overwhelmingly dominant post-season to lead his team to a title, and a couple of decent post-season series sprinkled in with a majority of failed efforts.

      If you omit Johnson’s post-season records AFTER THE AGE OF 37, the approximate age of Mark Mulder today, Johnson’s career post-season ERA was 2.82 – that’s NOT “the pitching analog of A-Rod.” Andy Pettitte’s career post-season ERA was 3.81.