• The Yankees Are On Pace To Win 85 Games This Year

    Posted by on May 21st, 2014 · Comments (24)

    Worse, there’s only been three times this season where they have won more than 3 games in a row.

    Maybe they should be renamed “The New York Yawnkees”?

    The only ring this team is going to win is the “ring” at the end of “Bore-ring!”

    #Season2Watch …NOT!

    Comments on The Yankees Are On Pace To Win 85 Games This Year

    1. EHawk
      May 21st, 2014 | 11:54 am

      How many wins are the rest of the AL East teams on pace to win this year?

    2. Mr. October
      May 21st, 2014 | 12:32 pm

      The Yankees are on pace to win 85 games again this year due to injuries – such as the one to the no. 1 starter with a .500 record and E.R.A. close to 5.00 since March, 2013, and the bone spur injury the 37-year old free agent right-fielder has to his throwing arm which, of course, has nothing to do with age…

      EHawk wrote:

      How many wins are the rest of the AL East teams on pace to win this year?

      Detroit and Oakland are both on pace to win more than 104 games, and Los Angeles is on pace to win 90. I thought the New York Yankees were supposed to win A.L. Pennants and World Series titles, not compete for division titles? That’s the way it was when George M. Steinbrenner III was with us…

    3. May 21st, 2014 | 1:36 pm

      EHawk wrote:

      How many wins are the rest of the AL East teams on pace to win this year?

      So, if everyone else sucks then it’s OK for you to suck too? Is that the new mission statement of the 27-time world champion Yankees?

    4. Mr. October
      May 21st, 2014 | 3:45 pm

      According to Cashman, and as he repeated in an interview on WFAN in New York yesterday, the new mission statement of the 27-time world champion Yankees is “a quality, championship-caliber run” every year – whatever that means…

    5. Evan3457
      May 21st, 2014 | 9:12 pm

      Number of streaks of more than 3 wins…

      …by the Orioles: 1
      …by the Blue Jays: 1
      …by the Red Sox: none
      …by the Rays: none
      …by the Angels: none
      …by the Twins: none
      …by the Yankees: 2

      So far this season, the Tigers and the A’s have been outstanding, the Astros have been awful, and everyone else in the AL has been so-so.

    6. May 21st, 2014 | 11:33 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      So, you’re excited and positive over what you have seen from the Yankees so far this year?

    7. Greg H.
      May 22nd, 2014 | 12:22 am

      @ Steve L.:
      No Steve, we just choose to look at more than just the one single most pessimistic cynical point if view. And we aren’t constantly looking to find fault in Brian Cashnan. Do you honking either teams will stay on current pace?

      I am excited and positive. Do you dare to be excited and positive? C’mon bud, you can do it…

    8. Greg H.
      May 22nd, 2014 | 12:25 am

      Sorry man iPhone typos. Do you think those teams will stay on current pace?

    9. Scout
      May 22nd, 2014 | 8:28 am

      Before the season started, I was one of a group of commenters here who predicted 86-88 wins, with the lower number more likely if (when?) injuries hit. So 85 wins seems about right at the moment.

      With a tightly-bunched division, multiple teams will be buyers as the trade deadline approaches, probably including the Yankees. Simple supply and demand dictates that this will bid up the price of acquiring talent, and teams with strong prospects in the upper minors will have an advantage. Since the Yankee system once again lacks the assets valued by other teams, the Yankees will find it a challenge to make the deal(s) they need.

      Mediocrity in the AL East make sit likely that only the division-winner will qualify for the post-season. If that happens to be the Yankees, which is certainly possible, Cashman and co. will spin the outcome as evidence that they’ve produced a “championship-caliber” team.

    10. G.I. Joey
      May 22nd, 2014 | 11:46 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      I thought the New York Yankees were supposed to win A.L. Pennants and World Series titles, not compete for division titles? That’s the way it was when George M. Steinbrenner III was with us…

      I think it’s a three part process. First you win the division title or wild card spot, then you focus on the A.L. pennant, then the WS. It’s not like a 85 win team who gets into the playoffs cannot defeat a team with 95 wins. Once you get into the playoffs, your regular season record is irrelevant in my opinion.

    11. Mr. October
      May 22nd, 2014 | 1:39 pm

      Scout wrote:

      If [the $211 million Yankees qualify for the postseason with 87 wins in a mediocre division], which is certainly possible, Cashman and co. will spin the outcome as evidence that they’ve produced a “championship-caliber” team.

      +1; or, “the team provided for a ‘quality, championship-caliber run’ in 2014,” before it lost a one-game playoff in Oct., or before it lost the first three games of a best-of-five LDS…

      G.I. Joey wrote:

      I think it’s a three part process. First you win the division title or wild card spot, then you focus on the A.L. pennant, then the WS. It’s not like a 85 win team who gets into the playoffs cannot defeat a team with 95 wins. Once you get into the playoffs, your regular season record is irrelevant in my opinion.

      And that’s precisely what Cashman and co. want you and their fan base to think…

    12. LMJ229
      May 22nd, 2014 | 11:30 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      @ Steve L.:
      No Steve, we just choose to look at more than just the one single most pessimistic cynical point if view. And we aren’t constantly looking to find fault in Brian Cashnan. Do you honking either teams will stay on current pace?
      I am excited and positive. Do you dare to be excited and positive? C’mon bud, you can do it…

      Can you please tell me what you are excited and positive about? I’d like to hear that.

    13. LMJ229
      May 22nd, 2014 | 11:32 pm

      Scout wrote:

      Before the season started, I was one of a group of commenters here who predicted 86-88 wins, with the lower number more likely if (when?) injuries hit. So 85 wins seems about right at the moment.
      With a tightly-bunched division, multiple teams will be buyers as the trade deadline approaches, probably including the Yankees. Simple supply and demand dictates that this will bid up the price of acquiring talent, and teams with strong prospects in the upper minors will have an advantage. Since the Yankee system once again lacks the assets valued by other teams, the Yankees will find it a challenge to make the deal(s) they need.
      Mediocrity in the AL East make sit likely that only the division-winner will qualify for the post-season. If that happens to be the Yankees, which is certainly possible, Cashman and co. will spin the outcome as evidence that they’ve produced a “championship-caliber” team.

      Excellent post.

    14. LMJ229
      May 22nd, 2014 | 11:37 pm

      In my opinion, a championship caliber team is not a team that just makes the playoffs. To me, a championship caliber team has to be one of the 4 best teams in baseball. In other words, it has to make it to the championship round.

      Look at other teams in baseball that make the playoffs or teams in other sports like basketball, football and hockey. Are all of the teams that make the playoffs championship caliber teams? I think not.

    15. Mr. October
      May 23rd, 2014 | 4:55 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      In my opinion, a championship caliber team is not a team that just makes the playoffs… Look at other teams in baseball that make the playoffs or teams in other sports like basketball, football and hockey. Are all of the teams that make the playoffs championship caliber teams? I think not.

      Agreed.

      Beane’s Oakland Athletics, for example, are 0-7 in the postseason, or have not won an A.L.C.S. in seven (7) postseason appearances with payrolls of $35-85 million since 2000; the Athletics would have had a lot more “luck,” or success, in the postseason with $110-240 million payrolls…

      Beane’s teams have not had more success (2000-13) because they were not “championship-caliber” teams for the most part, and the same has been true in The Bronx from 2005-08, and 2010-14, or The Autonomy Era.

    16. Greg H.
      May 25th, 2014 | 1:47 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Can you please tell me what you are excited and positive about? I’d like to hear that.

      O hear ye hear ye, the Yanks are 2 games out of first place on Memorial Day Weekend so cue up the Debbie Downer theme music and line up the neg-aholics – the sky is falling!

      I’m excited to watch Tanaka pitch today, I want to watch Ellsbury get hot again, I love watching Betances pitch, and I enjoyed watching Robertson bounce back after getting walked off the night before. I enjoy every Solarte at bat. I like to see JR Murphy hit too. Sure, the defense sucks and it’s frustrating to watch grandpa Jeter out there playing short with a walker. But he’ll be gone next year, so I enjoy seeing him too. Ditto Ichiro. You enjoy what you enjoy I’ll enjoy the game today.

    17. Evan3457
      May 25th, 2014 | 1:59 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      So, you’re excited and positive over what you have seen from the Yankees so far this year?

      Not particularly, no.

      But I think the offense is better than it has shown so far.

    18. Evan3457
      May 25th, 2014 | 2:02 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      In my opinion, a championship caliber team is not a team that just makes the playoffs. To me, a championship caliber team has to be one of the 4 best teams in baseball. In other words, it has to make it to the championship round.
      Look at other teams in baseball that make the playoffs or teams in other sports like basketball, football and hockey. Are all of the teams that make the playoffs championship caliber teams? I think not.

      Well, you think making the ALCS qualifies as a championship caliber team. By this rubric, the Yanks have fielded a championship caliber team 3 times in the last 5 seasons.

      You might want to talk that one over with Mr. October; he has a different standard.

    19. Evan3457
      May 25th, 2014 | 2:09 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      LMJ229 wrote:
      In my opinion, a championship caliber team is not a team that just makes the playoffs… Look at other teams in baseball that make the playoffs or teams in other sports like basketball, football and hockey. Are all of the teams that make the playoffs championship caliber teams? I think not.
      Agreed.
      Beane’s Oakland Athletics, for example, are 0-7 in the postseason, or have not won an A.L.C.S. in seven (7) postseason appearances with payrolls of $35-85 million since 2000; the Athletics would have had a lot more “luck,” or success, in the postseason with $110-240 million payrolls…
      Beane’s teams have not had more success (2000-13) because they were not “championship-caliber” teams for the most part, and the same has been true in The Bronx from 2005-08, and 2010-14, or The Autonomy Era.

      But the A’s had three dominant starters from 2001-2003, and pitching is much more important than one ordinal, isn’t it? How do you explain this failure to win even one series, even losing to the low payroll Twins (payroll $1 million less than the A’s) in 2002?

      Well, it must’ve been their closer. Foulke wasn’t a post-season closer. Oh, wait, that can’t be it; Foulke was brilliant in closing the Red Sox’ 2004 title run.

      Well, maybe the A’s were unlucky. No, no, no, can’t be that; lucky isn’t a significant factor in winning a series of short series….

      Well, maybe the the A’s went cold, and their opponents got hot in the post-season. Nope, can’t be that, “hot and cold” isn’t a significant factor in the post-season, either.

      Gee what a stumper…

    20. Mr. October
      May 25th, 2014 | 4:12 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Ge back to us when you’ve figured out the difference between post hoc ergo propter hoc and a tautology…

    21. Mr. October
      May 29th, 2014 | 2:55 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      In my opinion, a championship caliber team is not a team that just makes the playoffs. To me, a championship caliber team has to be one of the 4 best teams in baseball. In other words, it has to make it to the championship round.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Well, you think making the ALCS qualifies as a championship caliber team. By this rubric, the Yanks have fielded a championship caliber team 3 times in the last 5 seasons…

      @ Evan3457:
      How about the rubric of making the ALCS and either: 1. winning at least one game; or 2. batting higher than .157?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      But the A’s had three dominant starters from 2001-2003, and pitching is much more important than one ordinal, isn’t it? How do you explain this failure to win even one series… Gee what a stumper…

      “… [The 2003 Oakland Athletics] featured a young offense with Chavez, Tejada, and Giambi, coupled with a cheap veteran pitching staff… and while the infield defense was reasonable, the outfield of Grieve, Long, and Stairs was one of the worst defensive groups [of recent vintage]. Things got a little bit better in the seasons thereafter. The Big Three of Zito, Hudson, and Mulder established themselves, and Beane… began to pay more attention to relief pitching and outfield defense.

      By 2003, the A’s had become a legitimately strong postseason club… But in 2004… Beane’s window of opportunity had closed.” Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong. Copyright (c) 2006 by Baseball Prospectus.

    22. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2014 | 11:48 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Ge back to us when you’ve figured out the difference between post hoc ergo propter hoc and a tautology…

      Typical losing non-response.

    23. Evan3457
      May 29th, 2014 | 11:51 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      .
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Well, you think making the ALCS qualifies as a championship caliber team. By this rubric, the Yanks have fielded a championship caliber team 3 times in the last 5 seasons…
      @ Evan3457:
      How about the rubric of making the ALCS and either: 1. winning at least one game; or 2. batting higher than .157?

      Just keep thinking up new phony criteria to replace your old, defeated criteria.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      But the A’s had three dominant starters from 2001-2003, and pitching is much more important than one ordinal, isn’t it? How do you explain this failure to win even one series… Gee what a stumper…
      “… [The 2003 Oakland Athletics] featured a young offense with Chavez, Tejada, and Giambi, coupled with a cheap veteran pitching staff… and while the infield defense was reasonable, the outfield of Grieve, Long, and Stairs was one of the worst defensive groups [of recent vintage]. Things got a little bit better in the seasons thereafter. The Big Three of Zito, Hudson, and Mulder established themselves, and Beane… began to pay more attention to relief pitching and outfield defense.
      By 2003, the A’s had become a legitimately strong postseason club… But in 2004… Beane’s window of opportunity had closed.” Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong. Copyright (c) 2006 by Baseball Prospectus.

      And yet, they dominated in the regular season with that terrible defensive outfield. Why didn’t they dominate in the post-season? What changes in the post-season?

      Oh, yeah, you face teams that can hit when you play in the post-season.

    24. Mr. October
      May 30th, 2014 | 12:07 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And yet, [the Oakland A's] dominated in the regular season… Why didn’t they dominate in the post-season? What changes in the post-season?

      “… The probability of the A’s losing all four of these playoff series consecutively is 3.5 percent, or odds of about 27-to-1 against. Since we’re only talking about four playoff series, we’ve got a small sample size that limits our ability to extrapolate meaning from these losses. But a 27-to-1 shot is unlikely enough that it’s still worth exploring whether there was something in particular about the A’s that made them less equipped for postseason play than their regular-season record would suggest

      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, [however]… the performance of non-closer relievers is of very little importance in the postseason. Between the absence of fourth and fifth starters who often require bullpen help and the willingness of managers to stretch their closers into multiple-inning stints, it is the secondary relief pitchers who get squeezed in the playoffs.

      Of all the statistics in our study, the one with the highest correlation to postseason success is opponents’ batting average…” Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong. Copyright (c) 2006 by Baseball Prospectus.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.