Yankees sign a Gerrit Cole...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

"I think most of the Yankee success stories were also helped by the deeper lineups. You can't pitch around everyone, so once pitchers have avoided Judge/Stanton/Sanche,. they might not have even strategized on how to handle the Urshela's and Tauchmann's s of the world, and those hitters feast on lesser or a complete lack of preparedness."

 

Also, a great lineup just wears down pitchers. It's hard enough trying to make perfect pitches to the heart of an order -- the bats that the game plan says "don't let him beat you" -- even when you get them out. But when a hurler gets hit (sometimes on good pitches), it only extends pitch counts, and then elbows, shoulders and legs grow tired.

 

As a result, sometimes fat pitches down the middle to the bottom of the order aren't always mistakes, but intentional offerings in the hopes of whiffs or weak contact. That's also a time when hitting becomes contagious...

[mvp 78]

Yes, but it won't make watching the games in 2020 any easier.

 

Remember, while I like titles, I would prefer a competitive team every season over 1 or 2 titles followed by prolonged mediocrity...

 

What if you're watching a bunch of younger guys that could be the foundation of our team going forward rather than just FA retreads. Wouldn't that make it a more exciting 75 win season?

[moonslav59]

What if you're watching a bunch of younger guys that could be the foundation of our team going forward rather than just FA retreads. Wouldn't that make it a more exciting 75 win season?

 

To me, yes.

 

It could be exciting to watch Devers, Bogey, Vaz and a bunch of rising stars, but only if I thought we were heading for something special 2-3 years down the road.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It felt that way in the late-80s, when Greenwell, Burks, Reed, etc. became regulars... and Clemens was only in his mid-20s. But then the Sox never developed any more good young pitching for what, decades?

[mvp 78]

It felt that way in the late-80s, when Greenwell, Burks, Reed, etc. became regulars... and Clemens was only in his mid-20s. But then the Sox never developed any more good young pitching for what, decades?

 

The problem wasn't developing pitching, it was letting Boggs, Clemens and Burks go elsewhere.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

That was an amazing time in baseball. Burks was a good player who averaged 15 HRs for the first nine years of his career in hitters' parks... then suddenly DOUBLED his power output, averaging 30 HRs for his next seven seasons, mostly in his past-his-prime-time.

 

Clemens' average won-loss record in the first four years of his 30s (his last four seasons in Boston) was 10-10... then he won four Cy Youngs in Toronto, New York and Houston.

 

Amazing, I tell ya...

[moonslav59]

I loved Burks.

 

I can understand why Clemens was not extended, and I'm glad he wasn't here when he got busted for PEDs. Plus, they guy is a creep. (He got away with some hanky-panky with an underage girl.)

 

Boggs in a Yankee uniform was indeed a sad site to see.

 

All that history really highlights how great it has been since Henry took over and changed the whole Sox image.

[notin]

What if you're watching a bunch of younger guys that could be the foundation of our team going forward rather than just FA retreads. Wouldn't that make it a more exciting 75 win season?

 

All 75 win seasons are equal, but some are more equal than others...

[Bellhorn04]

All 75 win seasons are equal, but some are more equal than others...

 

We're all wired differently, there's that too...

[moonslav59]

Would you rather have two 75 win seasons followed by a 95 win season or one 65 win season followed by an 85 and then 95 win season?

[Bellhorn04]

Would you rather have two 75 win seasons followed by a 95 win season or one 65 win season followed by an 85 and then 95 win season?

 

There's not really a huge difference in those scenarios.

[moonslav59]

There's not really a huge difference in those scenarios.

 

How about this?

 

65, 65, 95

 

vs

 

75, 75, 75

[Bellhorn04]

How about this?

 

65, 65, 95

 

vs

 

75, 75, 75

 

I'd take the first.

[moonslav59]

I'd take the first.

 

No debate, here.

[notin]

I don’t find the latter scenario to provide any competitive teams

[notin]

Would you prefer

 

1. 100, 90, 80

 

Or

 

2. 90, 90, 90?

[mvp 78]

I’d rather:

0, 81, 162

[moonslav59]

Would you prefer

 

1. 100, 90, 80

 

Or

 

2. 90, 90, 90?

 

Probably 1.

 

Although it's not about rings, I think #1 provides a better chance.

[S5Dewey]

81, 90, 95, 100. Rinse, repeat.

[Slasher9]

i will gladly take:

last place, last place, last place, parade every four years.

because every single one of those last place finishes i liked our teams chances going into the season.

20 years ago we would have all given our left nut to have a parade. now we are demanding 95 win seasons every year? da fuq.

[Bellhorn04]

i will gladly take:

last place, last place, last place, parade every four years.

because every single one of those last place finishes i liked our teams chances going into the season.

20 years ago we would have all given our left nut to have a parade. now we are demanding 95 win seasons every year? da fuq.

 

I know, it's crazy. Now we have a parade, and the head of ops gets fired the next year, and some people want the manager fired...

[mvp 78]

I know, it's crazy. Now we have a parade, and the head of ops gets fired the next year, and some people want the manager fired...

 

Some people are hoping he gets a long suspension for his Astros days.

[Slasher9]

I know, it's crazy. Now we have a parade, and the head of ops gets fired the next year, and some people want the manager fired...

 

hahahaha. WTF!

well played.

[cp176]

i will gladly take:

last place, last place, last place, parade every four years.

because every single one of those last place finishes i liked our teams chances going into the season.

20 years ago we would have all given our left nut to have a parade. now we are demanding 95 win seasons every year? da fuq.

 

Absolutely the key for me is to have a team that I think has a legit chance to get into the playoffs year in and year out. If you are serious about your statement, then once again we really are on the same page. There might be a few posters here who have suggested that we should have a team capable of 95 wins every year I guess. It isn't realistic at all but oh well. I would look at people like that in the same way that i tend to look at those few who have suggested that the only way for us to be consistently good going forward is to likely be bad for a year or two or three. In my world, both of those concepts are equally ridiculous.

I just want a team that can enter the season that I think has a chance - big chance or little chance - I don't care. A chance that is all.

[notin]

i will gladly take:

last place, last place, last place, parade every four years.

because every single one of those last place finishes i liked our teams chances going into the season.

20 years ago we would have all given our left nut to have a parade. now we are demanding 95 win seasons every year? da fuq.

 

 

Right. We should have more reasonable demands - like a parade every 4 years....

[TylerD]

i will gladly take:

last place, last place, last place, parade every four years.

because every single one of those last place finishes i liked our teams chances going into the season.

20 years ago we would have all given our left nut to have a parade. now we are demanding 95 win seasons every year? da fuq.

 

Agreed!