2010 ALCS: Yankees @ Rangers

[redsoxrules]

11 baserunners in 6IP is f***ing horrible

 

oh right , I forgot that I'm talking with someone who says if the Yankee's comeback and win this series its the best comeback ever

 

on second tought , CC performance in game 5 was better than a no hitter

[italstallianion]

He wasn't "effective" in terms of having best stuff yesterday. In 6 long innings he allowed 11 hits, and frequently fell behind hitters because he could not locate most of his pitches. However, in the immortal words of Rangers manager Ron Washington, the Rangers had Sabathia bended, but he did not break. He did not walk any batters, and allowed just two extra base hits. In this way he was able to scatter baserunners over his 6 innings and allow just 2 runs.

 

If that performance wasn't effective, what do you call it?

 

 

Extremely f***** lucky.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Divinity setting himself up to get owned..AGAIN!

[sheffieldcelt]

11 baserunners in 6IP is f***ing horrible

 

oh right , I forgot that I'm talking with someone who says if the Yankee's comeback and win this series its the best comeback ever

 

on second tought , CC performance in game 5 was better than a no hitter

 

Cc has throw into a few jam's in ALCS but to be fair to him has got out of them

 

Luck? Good pitching? I'd go for the latter

 

One game sticks out where he gave up 3 runs in opening inning, he got out of bases loaded to keep the score at 3-0, could have been a lot worse, a little luck involved too maybe

 

Best comeback ever? I can think of a better one that involved the yankees, where their supporters showed their class in game 6, raining bottles and missiles on to the pitch

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

I'll be at my homecoming game but I expect the Rangers to give the Yankees a spanking when I get back. Go Rangers!

[yankees228]

Jeter has been hitting well too, but when you're 3rd and 4th hitters aren't contributing its going to hurt your team.

 

They had several good scoring opportunities in the games they lost, but didn't get timely hits. (aside from G3)

 

Sabathia's and Hughes poor performances in G1 and G2 is most likely due to the fact that they were pitching on extra rest, which has been shown to affect them negatively.

 

Don't make excuses for them. Hughes was great in the ALDS on extra rest. Sabathia was decent in the ALDS on extra rest.

[Emmz]

He wasn't "effective" in terms of having best stuff yesterday. In 6 long innings he allowed 11 hits, and frequently fell behind hitters because he could not locate most of his pitches. However, in the immortal words of Rangers manager Ron Washington, the Rangers had Sabathia bended, but he did not break. He did not walk any batters, and allowed just two extra base hits. In this way he was able to scatter baserunners over his 6 innings and allow just 2 runs.

 

If that performance wasn't effective, what do you call it?

 

You are extremely delusional dude. That's all I have to say.

[yankees228]

11 hits' date=' but he was effective? lmfao[/quote']

 

Effective - "producing or capable of producing an intended result"

 

He struggled, but was effective in the end. You guys are reacting as if Divinity said he pitched great. He was shaky, but effective in the end.

[Divinity]

11 baserunners in 6IP is f***ing horrible

 

oh right , I forgot that I'm talking with someone who says if the Yankee's comeback and win this series its the best comeback ever

 

on second tought , CC performance in game 5 was better than a no hitter

 

No I totally take it back, it would be the worst comeback ever, who cares if the Yankees become 1 of 10 teams in history to come back to win after dropping the first 3 of 4.

 

I mean they only have a 15% chance of winning and face a guy who's only undefeated in the post season with a 1.1 ERA, plus he was a little shakey last year but this year he's thrown half the amount of pitches, so whats the difference if he's even stronger then before. I bet the Red Sox would've have rocked Lee with there eyes closed. :thumbsup:

[yankees228]

Extremely f***** lucky.

 

Actually, according to the stats he was quite unlucky.

 

0.526 BABIP

[Emmz]

So lucky is effective? Come on y228, you know better than that. 6 innings, 11 hits. That's not only ineffective, it's awful pitching.

[yankees228]

So lucky is effective? Come on y228' date=' you know better than that. 6 innings, 11 hits. That's not only ineffective, it's awful pitching.[/quote']

 

It produced the desired result (6 IP, 2 ER and a win), making it effective. It's as simple as that, even if there was some luck involved. The word effective only cares about the end result, not the process. We're arguing semantics, so this is pointless anyway, but by the definition of the word, Divinity is correct.

 

As for luck, from a statisticians point of view, he was extremely unlucky, due to his BABIP in that game.

[Emmz]

Actually, according to the stats he was quite unlucky.

 

0.526 BABIP

 

Oh please. 11 hits over 6 innings yet qualifying under your terms of "effective" is LUCKY. Are you serious?

[Emmz]

It produced the desired result, making it effective. It's as simple as that, even if there was some luck involved. We're arguing semantics, so this is pointless anyway, but by the definition of the word, Divinity is correct.

 

As for luck, from a statisticians point of view, he was extremely unlucky, due to his BABIP in that game.

 

He pitched like s***. That's not effective. Simple as that.

 

6 innings, 11 hits. He put a horseshit effort. I guess if some guy were to have a 6.5 ERA and went 20-0, you'd consider him effective, right? Do you realize how asinine that sounds?

[yankees228]

Oh please. 11 hits over 6 innings yet qualifying under your terms of "effective" is LUCKY. Are you serious?

 

When all but two of the hits are singles, and his BABIP is up over .500, he's unlucky from a statistical point of view. That's all I'm saying.

[Divinity]

He pitched like s***. That's not effective. Simple as that.

 

6 innings, 11 hits. He put a horseshit effort. I guess if some guy were to have a 6.5 ERA and went 20-0, you'd consider him effective, right? Do you realize how asinine that sounds?

 

You have to look at more then just hits, especially RISP (runners in scoring position) where he went 1-for-8. Not a single Rangers player hit his off-speed pitches into play that night.

[Emmz]

That's called being lucky. He was not effective.

[yankees228]

He pitched like s***. That's not effective. Simple as that.

 

6 innings, 11 hits. He put a horseshit effort. I guess if some guy were to have a 6.5 ERA and went 20-0, you'd consider him effective, right? Do you realize how asinine that sounds?

 

That's a poor analogy. Sabathia didn't pitch to a 6.5 ERA, he pitched to a 3 ERA in this game, with a ridiculously high BABIP. If you want to make a relevant comparison, you have to extrapolate those numbers out over an entire season.

 

So instead of 20-0, 6.5 ERA, incredibly high WHIP, and an incredibly high BABIP, your analogy would have to be 20-0, 3 ERA, incredibly high WHIP, and an incredibly high BABIP. Not only would I call that effective, I'd call it a borderline amazing season, to have that low of an ERA with that high a BABIP. Now this is all worthless, because it doesn't actually pertain to the topic, but it does pertain to your analogy.

 

But, here's the key point. By definition, the word 'effective' only cares about the end result, not the process by which it was achieved. The end result was a 3 ERA, and a win. It wasn't pretty, and it wasn't accomplished by great pitching, but by the definition of the word, it was effective.

[italstallianion]

Actually, according to the stats he was quite unlucky.

 

0.526 BABIP

 

 

 

I think it's obvious that Sabathia was BOTH lucky and effective. My opinion is that if he gave up 11hits in 6 innings and only gave up 2 ER, especially against the Rangers lineup, that he was extremely lucky. He might not have been statistically lucky (in giving up those hits), but he was statistically lucky when you look at his strand rate (runs scored vs. total number of runners).

 

I think the confusion comes in that saying that Sabathia was effective implies that he was pitching better than he did. For example, if the Yankees didn't win the game, I don't think many people would be saying that he was pitching effective. I think that a better way to say it would be that Sabathia had an effective outing, which speaks more to the outing as a whole rather than the actual specifics of Sabathia's pitching, which is where RSR and Emmz are saying that it implies that Sabathia was better than he was.

 

He's obviously a great pitcher, but he's lucky that 11 hits didn't turn into 11 runs with that Texas offense.

[a700hitter]

The key to this series for the Yanks has not been any of the players, but rather that Girardi apparently got mercury poisoning from thos stupid braces. He's f***ed up the series for the Yanks. If they survive, it will be because he is the luckiest manager in the world.

[yankees228]

I think it's obvious that Sabathia was BOTH lucky and effective. My opinion is that if he gave up 11hits in 6 innings and only gave up 2 ER, especially against the Rangers lineup, that he was extremely lucky. He might not have been statistically lucky (in giving up those hits), but he was statistically lucky when you look at his strand rate (runs scored vs. total number of runners).

 

I think the confusion comes in that saying that Sabathia was effective implies that he was pitching better than he did. For example, if the Yankees didn't win the game, I don't think many people would be saying that he was pitching effective. I think that a better way to say it would be that Sabathia had an effective outing, which speaks more to the outing as a whole rather than the actual specifics of Sabathia's pitching, which is where RSR and Emmz are saying that it implies that Sabathia was better than he was.

 

He's obviously a great pitcher, but he's lucky that 11 hits didn't turn into 11 runs with that Texas offense.

 

I can completely agree with most of this. He was unlucky with the amount of hits he gave up, but lucky because of his strand rate. So in some ways he was lucky, and in other ways he was unlucky. The people labeling his outing as 'garbage and lucky' are incorrect.

 

And anyone who is getting an implication from the word 'effective' has only themselves to blame for that. Go by the definition.

[Emmz]

You're subjecting the word effective to what's convenient. He had an almost 2 WHIP, that's not effective pitching. The game as a whole, he was lucky. I don't consider that effective pitching, and you shouldn't either.

 

Tell me, would you consider your pitching staff effective if it's WHIP was 2? I can promise you, your ERA wouldn't be 3, because you don't play 162+ games with as much luck as CC had. Regardless of what you think is effective, you're being very generous to how poorly CC pitched, with words like "shaky". He was very fortunate the Rangers didn't drop 6 or more runs on 11 hits.

[italstallianion]

Who'd have ever thought that I'd be the voice of reason? Does anyone else see any unicorns?

[Emmz]

I just feel effective is too generous for how poorly he pitched.

[jacksonianmarch]

CC gave up about 2 hard hit balls. That being said, he was wild in the zone which is why the Rangers were able to serve some balls into the holes and into the outfield. He wasnt at his best, but he was definitely effective. Effectiveness, to me, means results.

[Emmz]

That's fair, if you're speaking specifically of the results. I don't think his pitching itself was very effective, though.

[Divinity]

Yeah thats all I meant by being effective, don't think it was that difficult to see.

[Dipre]

CC gave up about 2 hard hit balls. That being said' date=' he was wild in the zone which is why the Rangers were able to serve some balls into the holes and into the outfield. He wasnt at his best, but he was definitely effective. Effectiveness, to me, means results.[/quote']

 

Really?

 

Because i can recall at least two instances where Dice-K allowed two or less runs over six or more IP while allowing nine or ten base-runners and you described his performance as "awful", "lucky" or "ineffective". Be consistent.

 

You're also flat-out lying when you say CC gave up "about two hard hit balls" since the Rangers were spraying liners all over the place.

 

Jesus Christ.

[jacksonianmarch]

Did you actually watch the game? And CC wasnt good. I have attested to that. But he was effective. And definitely lucky.

[yankees228]

That's fair' date=' if you're speaking specifically of the results. I don't think his pitching itself was very effective, though.[/quote']

 

Haha, I've probably said this in like three different posts before Jacko's.