2010 ALCS: Yankees @ Rangers

[yankees228]

El Duque was pitching with a bad shoulder, and gave up three runs in the fifth inning before exiting in Game 4. Mussina was decent in Game 5, but gave up two runs in the first inning, and couldn't complete seven.

 

Sure, Jon Lieber and Mike Mussina pitched well in the series, but they were average pitchers that season. Here are the ERA+'s of each teams top three starters that year.

 

Yankees:

 

98

104

110

 

*Two of those guys missed time in September, and the one with the best ERA+ is Kevin Brown...

 

Red Sox:

 

150

125

121

 

Regardless of what happened in that series, the Red Sox's starting pitching was clearly superior to what the Yankees had.

 

Again, I'll reiterate my position once again. The greatest comeback in MLB postseason history is the 2004 Red Sox in the ALCS. In all likelihood, nothing will ever match it. All I'm saying is that the Red Sox, on the strength of their starting pitching, were the better team.

[The Village Idiot]

On paper' date=' the Red Sox had a better rotation. We had two legitimate aces in Pedro and Schilling, who both had better seasons than any 2004 Yankees pitchers. Although, I wouldn't say that we were leagues ahead, by any stretch.[/quote']

 

I agree with you. However, there was subtle implication in several of the above MFY fan posts that somehow, the Sox' pitching was SO much better than the Yankees' in '04 that the Yankees entered that year's playoffs as underdogs. If that isn't a load of complete and utter horseshit, then millions of small New York children aren't dreading getting braces because of how Joe Girardi looks in his.

[yankees228]

I agree with you. However' date=' there was subtle implication in several of the above MFY fan posts that somehow, the Sox' pitching was SO much better than the Yankees' in '04 that the Yankees entered that year's playoffs as underdogs. If that isn't a load of complete and utter horseshit, then millions of small New York children aren't dreading getting braces because of how Joe Girardi looks in his. [/quote']

 

On paper the 2004 Red Sox were the best team in the American League. This doesn't, in any way, take away from their comeback. It's just the way it was, and it's something I'd be happy about if I was a Red Sox's fan. Not sure why this would bother you.

[jacksonianmarch]

The sox pitching was world's better. For some reason, your offense waited until the 9th inning of game 4 to arrive. Regardless, being down 3-0, not having won anything in 86 yrs and facing the most storied franchise in sports is the best comeback. Unless we go down 0-3 and come back from a double digit deficit, we'll never match that

[The Village Idiot]

The relevant point here is that The New York Yankees' starting rotation is CC Sabathia, Phil Hughes, Andy Pettitte and AJ Burnett, and the Texas Rangers' rotation is CJ Wilson, Colby Lewis, Cliff Lee and Tommy Hunter. What I'm saying is that the Yankees coming back in the ALCS against this Rangers' pitching staff is less riveting and less of a story line than the Sox coming back while down 0-3 with their backs against the wall against El Duque who, again, held them practically scoreless in Game 4, and against Mike Mussina in Game 5, who was the Yankees' ace in '04, who (sorry) actually did get through 7 and held the Sox scoreless 6 of 7 innings in that game. Then the Sox were going up against Lieber, away, in Yankee Stadium, with Schilling pitching after having had f***ing surgery that morning. AND Lieber, like I said, held them scoreless for all but one of the innings he was out there.

 

Sorry to beat a dead horse(face), but the point is simple and clear: If the Yanks come back against Texas this year, quite frankly, they pretty much should. Wasn't the case in '04 and will never be, which is a great part of what made the latter as special as it was and will always be for us.

[The Village Idiot]

The sox pitching was world's better. For some reason' date=' your offense waited until the 9th inning of game 4 to arrive. Regardless, being down 3-0, not having won anything in 86 yrs and facing the most storied franchise in sports is the best comeback. Unless we go down 0-3 and come back from a double digit deficit, we'll never match that[/quote']

 

How can you say this, in terms of why the offense didn't arrive until Game 4? Mussina and Lieber both pitched one hell of a game every time they took the mound. Did you watch the series?

 

Yup on your last point.

[Emmz]

The Sox pitching was worlds better on paper, but not that season.

[The Village Idiot]

On paper the 2004 Red Sox were the best team in the American League. This doesn't' date=' in any way, take away from their comeback. It's just the way it was, and it's something I'd be happy about if I was a Red Sox's fan. Not sure why this would bother you.[/quote']

 

You're missing my point. I'm talking about the Yankees/Texas series as it relates, comparatively, to the '04 Sox/Yanks series. That's all. It's pretty clear the Sox, in the end, proved themselves to be the better team in the A.L. There is nothing at all about this that bothers me, obviously.

[yankees228]

You're missing my point. I'm talking about the Yankees/Texas series as it relates' date=' comparatively, to the '04 Sox/Yanks series. That's all. It's pretty clear the Sox, in the end, proved themselves to be the better team in the A.L. There is nothing at all about this that bothers me, obviously.[/quote']

 

The majority of your post that I was initially responded to talked only about 2004. You've made subsequent posts stating that you disagree with the notion that the Red Sox's pitching in 2004 was significantly better than the Yankees' pitching. These are the points I'm responding to.

[yankees228]

The Sox pitching was worlds better on paper' date=' but not that season.[/quote']

 

Again, here are the ERA+s of the top three starters for each team in 2004.

 

Yankees:

 

98

104

110

 

Red Sox:

 

150

125

121

 

You don't think the starting pitching for the Red Sox in 2004 was significantly better than the Yankees starting pitching that year?

[jacksonianmarch]

Mussina had an ERA of 4.59 in 160IP in 2004.

Jon Lieber had an ERA of 4.33 in 176.2IP in 2004.

Brown threw only 132IP in 2004, but had a team low ERA of 4.09

El Duque only threw 82IP prior to the playoffs in 2004.

 

That is a s*** rotation. Don't deny it. Pedro and Schilling crushed the above numbers. Arroyo would have been the best statistical pitcher on the 2004 Yanks. And Lowe had a s*** season, worse than everyone. On paper, the rotation was WORLDS better. There is no discussion there.

[Emmz]

No one is denying it. But Wakefield and Lowe significantly worse than what the Yanks put out there.

[yankees228]

No one is denying it. But Wakefield and Lowe significantly worse than what the Yanks put out there.

 

Well the top of the rotation for the Red Sox is much better, which is what matters in a short series. As for the last part, that isn't true either.

 

Tim Wakefield 2004 ERA+: 100

Derek Lowe 2004 ERA+: 90

 

Javier Vazquez 2004 ERA+: 92

Esteban Loaiza 2004 ERA+ (with Yankees): 53

[Emmz]

Again, here are the ERA+s of the top three starters for each team in 2004.

 

Yankees:

 

98

104

110

 

Red Sox:

 

150

125

121

 

You don't think the starting pitching for the Red Sox in 2004 was significantly better than the Yankees starting pitching that year?

 

Not significantly, no. I think that the '04 Red Sox had two aces, which gives them a short series advantage, but I already said that.

[yankees228]

Not significantly' date=' no. I think that the '04 Red Sox had two aces, which gives them a short series advantage, but I already said that.[/quote']

 

But how is it not a significant advantage? The numbers for the Red Sox's starting pitchers in 2004 was much better than the Yankees' starters. This much is undeniable.

[Emmz]

Well the top of the rotation for the Red Sox is much better, which is what matters in a short series. As for the last part, that isn't true either.

 

Tim Wakefield 2004 ERA+: 100

Derek Lowe 2004 ERA+: 90

 

Javier Vazquez 2004 ERA+: 92

Esteban Loaiza 2004 ERA+ (with Yankees): 53

 

lol

 

Leiber, Brown, Mussina and Hernandez were their playoff pitchers. Vs. Schilling, Pedro, Lowe and Wakefield.

[yankees228]

Going into the playoffs the Yankees five starters were...

 

Mike Mussina 98 ERA+

Jon Lieber 104 ERA+

Kevin Brown 110 ERA+

Javier Vazquez 92 ERA+

Esteban Loaiza 82 ERA+ (53 with the Yankees)

 

Now the Red Sox's starters...

 

Curt Schilling 150 ERA+

Pedro Martinez 125 ERA+

Bronson Arroyo 121 ERA+

Tim Wakefield 100 ERA+

Derek Lowe 92 ERA+

 

That is an enormous disparity.

[yankees228]

lol

 

Leiber, Brown, Mussina and Hernandez were their playoff pitchers. Vs. Schilling, Pedro, Lowe and Wakefield.

 

Wakefield never started against the Yankees, Arroyo did. And El Duque wass a non factor, as he was dealing with shoulder problems down the stretch that forced him off the ALDS roster, and led to his subpar start in the ALCS.

 

EDIT: And I mentioned the other guys because you said those two were worse than what the Yankees had, so (because they both didn't start in the ALCS) I assumed you were just talking about the bottom of each team's rotation.

[Emmz]

Except they didn't use Vazquez or Loaiza vs. the Red Sox, they used El Duque, who had a 137 ERA+.

[yankees228]

Except they didn't use Vazquez or Loaiza vs. the Red Sox' date=' they used El Duque, who had a 137 ERA+.[/quote']

 

Again, El Duque's numbers that year aren't relevant going into the postseason because of his injury. He pitched on 9/22 that year, but then didn't pitch again until 10/1 because of a bad shoulder. That injury forced him off the ALDS roster, and pushed him back all the way to Game 4 of the ALCS (a start that was in question up until the day of the game).

 

When comparing the rotations of the two teams heading into the postseason, using El Duque's season numbers isn't justified because of his injury.

[Emmz]

Wakefield never started against the Yankees, Arroyo did. And El Duque wass a non factor, as he was dealing with shoulder problems down the stretch that forced him off the ALDS roster, and led to his subpar start in the ALCS.

 

EDIT: And I mentioned the other guys because you said those two were worse than what the Yankees had, so (because they both didn't start in the ALCS) I assumed you were just talking about the bottom of each team's rotation.

 

You're still acting like I said the Red Sox didn't have as good a rotation. I've admitted they had a better front of the rotation to win the short series. I just wish people would stop saying the Yanks were outmatched in pitching so much. The difference wasn't that huge, especially in the first 3 games of that series.

[yankees228]

You're still acting like I said the Red Sox didn't have as good a rotation. I've admitted they had a better front of the rotation to win the short series. I just wish people would stop saying the Yanks were outmatched in pitching so much. The difference wasn't that huge' date=' especially in the first 3 games of that series.[/quote']

 

Average ERA+ of the Yankees' first three starters: 104

 

Average ERA+ of the Red Sox's first three starters: 132

 

You don't think that's a huge difference?

[Emmz]

Again, El Duque's numbers that year aren't relevant going into the postseason because of his injury. He pitched on 9/22 that year, but then didn't pitch again until 10/1 because of a bad shoulder. That injury forced him off the ALDS roster, and pushed him back all the way to Game 4 of the ALCS (a start that was in question up until the day of the game).

 

When comparing the rotations of the two teams heading into the postseason, using El Duque's season numbers isn't justified because of his injury.

 

I think you're just using that for convenience. He pitched well enough to get the win had the Sox held on, so I don't buy that.

[yankees228]

I think you're just using that for convenience. He pitched well enough to get the win had the Sox held on' date=' so I don't buy that.[/quote']

 

How am I using that for convenience? He was injured to the point that, although he was the Yankees' best starting pitcher in the second half of the season, he missed an entire series. The injury was clearly legitimate, and it was an arm injury.

 

But OK, choose to believe what you want.

[Emmz]

Average ERA+ of the Yankees' first three starters: 104

 

Average ERA+ of the Red Sox's first three starters: 132

 

You don't think that's a huge difference?

 

You do realize in terms of ERA+, that that's relatively small, right? I could see you calling the Red Sox "world better" in pitching if the Yanks' ERA+ was like 80 or something, but that's 28. For example, in 2001, Curt Schilling's ERA+ was 157, while his teammate Randy Johnson's was 188. Johnson's ERA was 2.48 to Schilling's 2.98, a half run difference only. So how is that "world's better"?

[yankees228]

You do realize in terms of ERA+' date=' that that's relatively small, right? I could see you calling the Red Sox "world better" in pitching if the Yanks' ERA+ was like 80 or something, but that's 28. For example, in 2001, Curt Schilling's ERA+ was 157, while his teammate Randy Johnson's was 188. Johnson's ERA was 2.48 to Schilling's 2.98, a half run difference only. So how is that "world's better"?[/quote']

 

Well in this case it's 0.61. I never said the words 'worlds better', but I do think that's a significant difference. The Red Sox's had a clear advantage in all three pitching match-ups. I just view that as a clear advantage in the pitching department.

[Emmz]

Someone said there was a massive difference. There simply wasn't a massive difference. It was significant, but surely not massive by any stretch of the word.

[yankees228]

Someone said there was a massive difference. There simply wasn't a massive difference. It was significant' date=' but surely not massive by any stretch of the word.[/quote']

 

OK, that's fair. My only point all along was that the Red Sox were the better team. Better pitching and comparable offenses. The Red Sox's pyth was also seven games better.

[Dipre]

Lol @ the greatest comeback argument.

 

I'm so happy right now, but to make my life perfect:

 

1) The Yanks lose to the Rangers.

 

2) CLiff Lee signs with Texas.

 

3) The Sox re-sign V-Mart and trade for A-Gon/re-sign Beltre (or even better, both)

 

4) The Sox fix the bullpen.

 

Oh baseball Gods, smile upon these simple requests!

[26 to 6]

At the time I thought that the Sox had the better pitching staff top-to-bottom, and that the Yankees were the team to beat. The Sox had the better head to head record that season, but the Yankees won the division, on top of the fact that the Yankees so dramatically beat the Sox the previous postseason. They were both very comparable to each other that year, but to me despite Boston's pitching advantage they were still looked at as the underdog coming into the series, and that was supported when they went down 3-0, making their incredible comeback that much more amazing (or devastating, if you're a Yankee fan). I don't think that the Yankees' advantage as the "favorite" was that dramatic though, as they were both very competitive all season.