Expectations for the Yankees down the Stretch

[RWTP24]

As bad as Detroit is' date=' Verlander and Jackson could make things interesting in a 5-game series. Would love to see the upset.[/quote']

 

It just might happen.

 

If any Yankees fan is not scared of that series, they are full of crap. I can see Detroit winning.

[Paradisecity]

Their bats would need to show up big time.

 

The yankees at home are a menace with all their lefties. A good day for pitcher on the other end is 5 runs allowed over 9.

 

Its scary.

[jacksonianmarch]

I am scared of every post season series, especially with our ballpark. Granted, we seem to dominate in NY, but no lead is safe when we have a righty on the hill.

[ElMaestro]

2008 was an utter disaster.

 

You mean an utter disaster based on the result, or the expectations?. Because if it was based on the result, then I agree partially. The yanks are supposed to go to the postseason every year, and the year they don't should be a "disaster". But in the other hand, we are so spoiled as a yankee fans that we "expect" them to have a shot at a championship every year, and that's unrealistic.

 

I disagree if that was based on the expectations. 2008 was the year when all the bad decisions of the previous years finally hurt us. Also we had some key injuries (Wang, Joba, Posada) that were devastated. And anyway, before all that, since the beginning I didn't saw the yanks going to the posteason, because Boston and Tampa were better teams.

 

This year it will be dissapointing in every way, but as I said in my "little boy" post, being the best during the regular season can assure you nothing. At the end, a little thing can change the outcome of the whole series.

 

...and I will drive my post count up, so I can be treated as a "big boy", as I can see

[yankees228]

At the beginning of the 2008 regular season, coming off thirteen straight postseason appearances, you're honestly telling me you expected them not to make it?

[example1]

The playoffs are not a complete crapshoot. That is a phrase that people take from "Moneyball", where Beane used it as a way of describing why he would prefer to build his team for the regular season rather than the playoffs. All the stuff about "things evening out" applies to the regular season, so teams that build themselves around OBP or scoring runs will eventually score their runs.

 

If the playoffs were truly a crapshoot then there would be no way to explain the championships the Yankees won in the 30's or the 90's. They won four in a row in the 30's.

 

Instead, everyone knew they were the best team and they played like it.

 

Likewise, it isn't a crapshoot if Josh Beckett comes out and dominates the Rockies in the World Series, or if CC does the same thing. It also isn't a crapshoot if a team sweeps another team (Sox in 04 and 07). When you're up 3-0 in the series it doesn't matter who runs the bases poorly or well, the team up 3-0 will usually win.

 

I think it is time to put this "crapshoot" idea to rest. It is cute and is a nice explanation for teams that are relatively equal in terms of talent. But if the Yankees lose in the World Series to the Dodgers or the Rockies then the crapshoot theory will hold no water. It's a 7 game series, the Yankees depth and talen tshould absolutely win out.

[yankees228]

The playoffs are not a complete crapshoot. That is a phrase that people take from "Moneyball", where Beane used it as a way of describing why he would prefer to build his team for the regular season rather than the playoffs. All the stuff about "things evening out" applies to the regular season, so teams that build themselves around OBP or scoring runs will eventually score their runs.

 

If the playoffs were truly a crapshoot then there would be no way to explain the championships the Yankees won in the 30's or the 90's. They won four in a row in the 30's.

 

Instead, everyone knew they were the best team and they played like it.

 

Likewise, it isn't a crapshoot if Josh Beckett comes out and dominates the Rockies in the World Series, or if CC does the same thing. It also isn't a crapshoot if a team sweeps another team (Sox in 04 and 07). When you're up 3-0 in the series it doesn't matter who runs the bases poorly or well, the team up 3-0 will usually win.

 

I think it is time to put this "crapshoot" idea to rest. It is cute and is a nice explanation for teams that are relatively equal in terms of talent. But if the Yankees lose in the World Series to the Dodgers or the Rockies then the crapshoot theory will hold no water. It's a 7 game series, the Yankees depth and talen tshould absolutely win out.

 

You keep bringing up Beane, but that doesn't mean I'm using it the same as he is. I really believe it is, because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

Second of all, do you honestly not see a difference between the 30s and today? I mean, come on, that literally proved nothing.

 

And you're right teams can dominate, but I've already stated numerous reasons why I think it is a crapshoot.

[example1]

You keep bringing up Beane, but that doesn't mean I'm using it the same as he is. I really believe it is, because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

Because one mistake can cost a team a series? No. One mistake doesn't cost a team a series unless they're in the position to lose that series with only one mistake. If the Yankees don't win the WS because they lose on a balk in the 7th game against the Rockies then it won't be the balk that put them in a position to lose.

 

Second of all, do you honestly not see a difference between the 30s and today? I mean, come on, that literally proved nothing.

 

The Yankees won in 98, 99, and 2000. They were the best team in each of those years and they stepped up and won the games they should have won. We can address 10 years ago if you would prefer.

 

And you're right teams can dominate, but I've already stated numerous reasons why I think it is a crapshoot.

 

A crapshoot implies randomness. It isn't random. If it were then the Vegas odds makers would say that all playoff teams have the same chance of winning once the playoffs start. Let's check in at playoff time and see if the big-boy money guys put equal odds on the Rockies and the Yankees.

 

Yes, it is a shorter season and the games need to be played. That doesn't make it an unpredictable crapshoot.

[yankees228]

They don't all have the same chance. I admitted that some teams are in better position to win than others. I also admitted that it isn't a total crapshoot. However, it is so much more of a crapshoot than the regular season.

 

Since the addition of the wild card, the results have become much more unpredictable. Since free agency began, only four teams have won back to back championships. Since the wild card, only one team has won back to back championships. There is a reason for this.

 

As for the Yankees, they were absolutely the best team in 1998. However, it's debatable whether they were the best team in 1999, and they were not the best team in 2000.

[yankees228]

Take a look at the 1996 World Series. The Braves were far and away better than the Yankees. However, the Yankees got break after break after break, and somehow, improbably, they won the series.

[Dipre]

Too many variables are involved in a short series for believing the term "crapshoot" is inappropriate.

 

That's the whole point of the term.

[RWTP24]

Too many variables are involved in a short series for believing the term "crapshoot" is inappropriate.

 

That's the whole point of the term.

 

I somewhat agree with you, but more than not, the better team with the pitching will win.

[yankees228]

I somewhat agree with you' date=' but more than not, the better team with the pitching will win.[/quote']

 

Yup, because the A's this decade have a couple championships.

[Dipre]

Yup' date=' because the A's this decade have a couple championships.[/quote']

 

And the overwhelming pitching exhibited by the 2002 Angels and 2006 Cardinals is proof also.

[yankees228]

And the overwhelming pitching exhibited by the 2002 Angels and 2006 Cardinals is proof also.

 

Nothing like having Kevin Appier and Jeff Weaver as number 2's.

[Dipre]

Nothing like having Kevin Appier and Jeff Weaver as number 2's.

 

Specially Weaver who's the definition of DOMINANT.

[yankees228]

Specially Weaver who's the definition of DOMINANT.

 

One of the greatest postseason pitching teams ever was the 2001 Diamondbacks. Now, in the end, they won. However, they barely won in the first round, and, in a way, the 2001 World Series speaks to how much of a crapshoot the postseason can be.

 

The Diamondbacks dominated that entire series, yet they went back home down 3-2 because their closer made two bad pitches. In the end, they won, but it was literally thanks to the absolute slimmest of margins. Even though they dominated the entire series, they only won thanks to two huge mistakes by the Yankees in that bottom of the ninth inning.

 

Very similar to the 1960 World Series. The Yankees dominated the Pirates in almost every statistical category, and were clearly the better team, but ended up losing the series.

 

It can be very flukey.

[RWTP24]

Yup' date=' because the A's this decade have a couple championships.[/quote']

 

And the overwhelming pitching exhibited by the 2002 Angels and 2006 Cardinals is proof also.

 

Nothing like having Kevin Appier and Jeff Weaver as number 2's.

 

Specially Weaver who's the definition of DOMINANT.

 

Just stop it!!

 

Oh wait, you guys are right...

 

2008 Philies

2004,2007 Sox

1997,2003 Marlins

1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 Yankees

2001 Diamondbacks

 

They all had NO pitching what so ever. Let’s get real now.

[yankees228]

Just stop it!!

 

Oh wait, you guys are right...

 

2008 Philies

2004,2007 Sox

1997,2003 Marlins

1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 Yankees

2001 Diamondbacks

 

They all had NO pitching what so ever. Let’s get real now.

 

It gives teams a better chance to win, but it doesn't always win.

 

As for your examples...I think you want to take some of those back. The 2008 Phillies had one really dominant starter, but their rotation as a whole was arguably not as good as the Rays.

 

The 2003 Marlins, even though Beckett was great (although he went 1-1 in the World Series) were not as good a pitching team as the Yankees.

 

The 1996 Yankees and the 1999 Yankees? Seriously? They had better pitching than the team they beat in the World Series?

[RWTP24]

It gives teams a better chance to win, but it doesn't always win.

 

As for your examples...I think you want to take some of those back. The 2008 Phillies had one really dominant starter, but their rotation as a whole was arguably not as good as the Rays.

 

The 2003 Marlins, even though Beckett was great (although he went 1-1 in the World Series) were not as good a pitching team as the Yankees.

 

The 1996 Yankees and the 1999 Yankees? Seriously? They had better pitching than the team they beat in the World Series?

 

Come on dude!

 

The Braves pitching was sooo good the Yankees swept them in 99 and only lost, what, one game in 96?

[Dipre]

Come on dude!

 

The Braves pitching was sooo good the Yankees swept them in 99 and only lost, what, one game in 96?

 

Lol read that again.

 

Slowly.

[jacksonianmarch]

Come on dude!

 

The Braves pitching was sooo good the Yankees swept them in 99 and only lost, what, one game in 96?

 

The Braves 1-2-3 will all be in the HOF and have won close to 900 games combined

[Dipre]

The Braves 1-2-3 will all be in the HOF and have won close to 900 games combined

 

Ah, Dipre and Jacko agreement.

 

Cherish the day.

[RWTP24]

The Braves 1-2-3 will all be in the HOF and have won close to 900 games combined

 

Yes Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux will all probably be in the HOF, but all of them never really pitched that well in the playoff. That is why they only won one WS. I believe that was 95 and if I remember right, Glavine was the only one who pitched really well in that series.

[Dipre]

Yes Smoltz' date=' Glavine and Maddux will all probably be in the HOF, but all of them never really pitched that well in the playoff. That is why they only won one WS. I believe that was 95 and if I remember right, Glavine was the only one who pitched really well in that series.[/quote']

 

John Smoltz is one of the greatest postseason pitchers in baseball history, my good sir.

[RWTP24]

Lol read that again.

 

Slowly.

 

Yeah Dipre, I am sure you have never messed up before.

 

I know you are smart enough to figure out what I was saying, but if not, let me help you.

 

The Braves pitching was sooo good, the Yankees swept them in 99 and only won, what, one game in 96?

[TheKilo]

And the overwhelming pitching exhibited by the 2002 Angels and 2006 Cardinals is proof also.

 

What don't you get about the 2002 Angels being a very, very good team?

[Dipre]

What don't you get about the 2002 Angels being a very' date=' very good team?[/quote']

 

But where they the best team?

 

We're talking about the postseason being a crapshoot.

 

Please make an argument about how the Angels were the best team to make the playoffs in 2002.

 

Plz go ahead.

[redsoxrules]

But where they the best team?

 

We're talking about the postseason being a crapshoot.

 

Please make an argument about how the Angels were the best team to make the playoffs in 2002.

 

Plz go ahead.

 

The 2002 LA angels had the BEST run diferential league at +207

[RWTP24]

John Smoltz is one of the greatest postseason pitchers in baseball history' date=' my good sir.[/quote']

 

Yes he was, but he always found a way to not win that much in the WS. I think his is 1-2, maybe 2-2. This was all so long ago, my memory might be off a little bit.

 

With all that said all three of them found a way not to win in the WS. Remember they only won once out of 3 or 4 times.