Can Money buy you a championship?

[ATRAIN]

Cubs........Yankees? hahahahah

[florige]

I do kinda feel bad for Torre though.

[SrA Husker]

I do kinda feel bad for Torre though.

Why? He didn't produce. He can also pick any job in baseball he wants, so it's not like he's going to go to the unemployment line.

[Melmart1]

I do kinda feel bad for Torre though.
I actually feel better for him. Fuck Steinbrenner, Torre has had to put up with his meddling and tirades for 12 years, time to move on and maybe enjoy baseball again.

[K-State Spur]

yes, but it doesn't guarantee you a title.

[DarkReign]

Yankees have an awesome lineup, but a shoddy rotation.

So, yes, unlimited payroll can buy you a championship when the unlimited payroll os spent on pitching not hitting.

Go out an buy every stud pitcher you can find, then fill in the lineup with anything you want. Sabathia & Santana 2009? Once again, my very poor knowledge of NL teams is showing here, but one could assume some real quality will be available this year or next, yes?

Buy elite pitching, buy players later. With Yankees ability to spend, they'd win every year. But the organization falls in love with bats, so they roll the most dangerous lineup in baseball (with egos to match, which accounts for thei lack of success) while piecing together some slip-shod pitching staff. Moose is done, Petite is still really good, Pavano...:lmao, Rocket....cmon already and retire for real, Wang is a good 4th starter, bullpen is atrocious outside of Rivera and (sometimes) Farnsworth.

Imagine the Yankees without ARod, Abreu and Giambi, replacing their salaries with Sabathia and Santana....would we be talking right now??

No, they'd be in the ALCS heavily favored to win the WS.

[florige]

I actually feel better for him. Fuck Steinbrenner, Torre has had to put up with his meddling and tirades for 12 years, time to move on and maybe enjoy baseball again.


Word around the campfire is that Steinbrenner is starting to show affects of the early stages of alzheimers. That sucks.

[florige]

Why? He didn't produce. He can also pick any job in baseball he wants, so it's not like he's going to go to the unemployment line.


I think Torre will take a year or two off just to rest and get his mind straight.

[Thunder Dan]

Note to Free Agents: New York isn't as good a destination as it may first appear.

Singed,
Carl Pavano, Kyle Farnsworth, Jason Giambi, A-Rod, Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, Chuck Knobloch,

[Melmart1]

Word around the campfire is that Steinbrenner is starting to show affects of the early stages of alzheimers. That sucks.
Yeah, I have heard that, too. As much as I loathe him, I don't wish Alzheimer's on ANYONE. I took care of my grandmother who had it for the last two years of her life and it is just gut-wrenching, the slow and painful process. I hope it's just 'old age' in his case.

And that may be the only time you will see me wish anything nice on that asshat.

[florige]

Yeah, I have heard that, too. As much as I loathe him, I don't wish Alzheimer's on ANYONE. I took care of my grandmother who had it for the last two years of her life and it is just gut-wrenching, the slow and painful process. I hope it's just 'old age' in his case.

And that may be the only time you will see me wish anything nice on that asshat.


Yeah I understand completely. My grandmother has dementia, and thats why I said that it sucks if he is starting to show symptons.

[ATRAIN]

Note to Free Agents: New York isn't as good a destination as it may first appear.

Singed,
Carl Pavano, Kyle Farnsworth, Jason Giambi, A-Rod, Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, Chuck Knobloch,


Does anyone know who the potential free agents are next year?

[Thunder Dan]

Does anyone know who the potential free agents are next year?

Andrew Jones, Torri Hunter and most of the Yankees pretty much. I bet they get out while they can

[K-State Spur]

Go out an buy every stud pitcher you can find, then fill in the lineup with anything you want. Sabathia & Santana 2009? Once again, my very poor knowledge of NL teams is showing here, but one could assume some real quality will be available this year or next, yes?

Buy elite pitching, buy players later.

What are you talking about? The Yankees have tried to buy the elite pitchers on the market. Clemens and Mussina were both viewed as the top free agent pitchers in their class. Pettite came [back] via free agency. Pavano and Jarrett Wright were both signed coming off stellar years. And they traded for Randy Johnson 2 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that teams simply don't let elite pitching enter the free agent market anymore.

Look at last year - the top 2 arms available were Zito and Schmidt. How did that work out for the teams that gave them monster deals?

This year's top free agent pitchers - probably Andy Pettite (if he doesn't retire) and Bartolo Colon (who is 34).

That's not a coincidence.

Next year, it does look like Santana will finally enter the market, but how much money (and more importantly - YEARS) would you be willing to give him knowing that Gardenheier has ridden him hard, he'll be 30 in the first year of his new deal, and he's 1-3 with an ERA of 4 in his postseason career - which is all the Yanks care about.

[Dirk Nowitzki]

Yankees have an awesome lineup, but a shoddy rotation.

So, yes, unlimited payroll can buy you a championship when the unlimited payroll os spent on pitching not hitting.

Go out an buy every stud pitcher you can find, then fill in the lineup with anything you want. Sabathia & Santana 2009? Once again, my very poor knowledge of NL teams is showing here, but one could assume some real quality will be available this year or next, yes?

Buy elite pitching, buy players later. With Yankees ability to spend, they'd win every year. But the organization falls in love with bats, so they roll the most dangerous lineup in baseball (with egos to match, which accounts for thei lack of success) while piecing together some slip-shod pitching staff. Moose is done, Petite is still really good, Pavano...:lmao, Rocket....cmon already and retire for real, Wang is a good 4th starter, bullpen is atrocious outside of Rivera and (sometimes) Farnsworth.

Imagine the Yankees without ARod, Abreu and Giambi, replacing their salaries with Sabathia and Santana....would we be talking right now??

No, they'd be in the ALCS heavily favored to win the WS.


The Yankee team who won 4 titles in 5 years had DOMINATING pitching! That was the strength of their team. That is why they were so disgustingly great. Their offense was pretty fucking good too. The Yanks are trying to get that back by buying old washed up pitchers or overpaying badly for decent ones. This team is hitting implosion in way that is going to sting them for a while. I am not saying they are as bad as the Rangers because they are still more than talented enough to keep going to the playoffs. If they want to bring back tradition to New York, they are going to need good young solid pitching ALL AROUND. Starting rotations,bullpen, and maybe even a closer if Rivera bolts. That is what made them so great in the late 90's.


On top of all those problems, they still havent gotten rid of that 2004 curse that Boston has set on them.

[K-State Spur]

You overstate it when you say that it was "DOMINATING!"

What they did have was a VERY GOOD starting rotation followed by an extremely strong back-end of the pen.

However, only ONCE in their World Series years did they even have as many as two starters with an ERA under 4.

[BeerIsGood!]

What the Yankees had when winning World Series were clutch guys who could hit and produce under pressure. Instead of a choking A-Rod making 25 mil a year they had the clutch hitting Scott Brosius making 2 million a year. They had Bernie Williams who is tied with Manny Ramirez for the most post season HR all time. Jeter was getting big hits and making big time plays, Paul O'Neil was a surly bastard but a clutch hitter, and the pitching was good enough.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think one thing that's missing from recent Yankee teams is true role players. The Yankees' front office seems to believe that only guys with All-Star credentials can provide the sort of play that is necessary to win a title. Other than Melky Cabrera (and Doug Mientkiewicz) the Yankees, so to speak, ran out a lineup filled with a bunch of chiefs and no indians, for most of this post-season. I think that tends to affect the way that a game is managed and, in playoff settings, proves more hurtful than helpful. How does a manager ask some of those guys to hit to the right side to advance a runner or to sacrifice to play for a one-run inning -- even if the interpersonal side of that was wholly irrelevant, the temptation to play for big innings is way to great. Playing for big innings tends to be a bad strategy in major league playoff games. Yankee management seems to expect the big bats to continue to thunder when the playoffs roll around; but against quality pitching and with the pressure of the playoffs there, I think it's ludicrous to think that will happen.

Along with truly addressing a substantial need for arms, the Yankees will continue to come up short without at least a few guys who just fill roles in the everyday lineup. Of course, I hope that they refuse to address those problems again this coming off-season. Illness aside, Steinbrenner has generally showed himself to be a world-class ass who happens to have a huge amount of money invested in his baseball club.

[K-State Spur]

That's a good point. There is a lot to be said for having a couple of guys in the order who feel the need to move runners along, run the bases well, and PLAY DEFENSE.

Right now, the Yanks have 9 guys who are used to being 'the man' offensively and thinking that it's there job to drive the guy home from 1b.

[Holt's Cat]

Fuck 'em. And fuck their fans too.

[FirebatMIV]

Sure it can!

-Signed
2007 Red Sox

[ducks]

barry bonds is a fa

[ducks]

That's a good point. There is a lot to be said for having a couple of guys in the order who feel the need to move runners along, run the bases well, and PLAY DEFENSE.

Right now, the Yanks have 9 guys who are used to being 'the man' offensively and thinking that it's there job to drive the guy home from 1b.
yep but torre is the manger and he should make them play small ball

[K-State Spur]

square pegs, round holes. manager can only manage the roster that is given to him.

[FromWayDowntown]

yep but torre is the manger and he should make them play small ball

Yeah -- Joe was going to last a long, long time telling a guy being paid $25 million per season to hit behind the runner.

:rolleyes

And I'm sure Joe could have just asked those guys to lay down sacrifice bunts, except that few of them would even recognize the signal. Here are the sacrifice bunt totals for a representative Yankee lineup:

Damon -- 3 sacrifice bunts in the last 4 years
Jeter -- 17 sacrifice bunts in last 3 years
Abreu -- 6 since 1996
Rodriguez -- no sacs since 1999
Posada -- 1 since 1997
Giambi -- no sacs since 1996
Matsui -- no sacs in MLB career
Cano -- 9 sacs in career, but 2 in last 2 years
Cabrera -- 10 sacs in 2007

[Erect as a Bull]

It sure didn't help the Mutts. :lol
And Boston has a high payroll as well.
I like how people seem to make it sound like the Yankees are the only team that has money.

We dont buy championships.
We havn't won a World Series since 2000 and that was with mainly Farm system players.
So i dont know why people make it sound like all we do is buy Championships since we havn't won in a while.

But our farm is back at it.
Our team looks bright.

Melky, Cano, Joba, Hughes, Kennedy, Wang, and we might even have Horne playing next year.
Then when we have players like Jeter, Posada, and Mo.
Hoping Posada and Mo both stay.
Hell maybe even Shelley will end up starting next year?

Who knows but pretty soon the majority of our team will go back to being farm products. Then we will go back to the glory days. :)


And as for the bunts I would have loved to see us move some runners over and maybe get a base hit here and there.
Them solo Hr's sucked last night.
But in the end another year without a ring.

Time to root for the Rockies :elephant:

[K-State Spur]

It sure didn't help the Mutts. :lol
And Boston has a high payroll as well.
I like how people seem to make it sound like the Yankees are the only team that has money.


As hypocritical as the Sox and Mets are, the Yanks still spend the most, by a decent margin.

And it's also because they put up the biggest stink when the topic of revenue sharing comes up.

[ducks]

Yeah -- Joe was going to last a long, long time telling a guy being paid $25 million per season to hit behind the runner.

:rolleyes

And I'm sure Joe could have just asked those guys to lay down sacrifice bunts, except that few of them would even recognize the signal. Here are the sacrifice bunt totals for a representative Yankee lineup:

Damon -- 3 sacrifice bunts in the last 4 years
Jeter -- 17 sacrifice bunts in last 3 years
Abreu -- 6 since 1996
Rodriguez -- no sacs since 1999
Posada -- 1 since 1997
Giambi -- no sacs since 1996
Matsui -- no sacs in MLB career
Cano -- 9 sacs in career, but 2 in last 2 years
Cabrera -- 10 sacs in 2007


if laying a sac moves the runner over or scores a run
why not do it
so what if that guy makes 25 million
he still only gets a hit one out of 3 times up there
33% chance of getting a hit
a sac fly bringing in the run close to over 90% getting the job done

thanks by providing the stats saying torre does not do it

if you get paid 25 million a season you fucking better know the signals

[ducks]

the owner wants to win I am sure he could care less if the guy is making 25 million season if he gets up there and sac flys a guy into home and scores the winning run instead of not getting a hit



I thought winning rings is what matters to players
so why would asking a game that gets a hit one out of 3 or 4 times at the plate be so upset at playing small ball

[Erect as a Bull]

Its hard to tell your players to go out and get a Sac Fly.
A player cant just say: I'm going to go and hit the ball to the Left Fielder.

Now Sac Bunts are different. I dont care if A-rod lays down a sac bunt to tie the game.

I just want to win no matter how much they make.
Oh well.

[DarkReign]

What are you talking about? The Yankees have tried to buy the elite pitchers on the market. Clemens and Mussina were both viewed as the top free agent pitchers in their class. Pettite came [back] via free agency. Pavano and Jarrett Wright were both signed coming off stellar years. And they traded for Randy Johnson 2 years ago.

Mussina was a stud. Clemens was good his first year. Johnson was old when they traded for him.

Pavano, he was coming off a very good year. No one could forsee that debacle. :lmao

So maybe there is some hard luck there. But Sabathia is going to win the Cy Young this year and Santana hs already won it twice.

Petite is still good. Why cant I find anything on Jarrett Wright?

[K-State Spur]

if laying a sac moves the runner over or scores a run
why not do it
so what if that guy makes 25 million
he still only gets a hit one out of 3 times up there
33% chance of getting a hit
a sac fly bringing in the run close to over 90% getting the job done

thanks by providing the stats saying torre does not do it

if you get paid 25 million a season you fucking better know the signals

actually if you're going to use that argument. bill james has statistically proven that the sacrifice actually leads to less runs over the course of a game. (that does not mean that there are not situations where it is called for)

and good players don't get on base 30-33% of the time, good players get on base closer to 40% of the time.

[DarkReign]

...and there goes my theory on Sabathia. lol...

I still think the Tribe take the series.

[Reggie Miller]

actually if you're going to use that argument. bill james has statistically proven that the sacrifice actually leads to less runs over the course of a game. (that does not mean that there are not situations where it is called for)

and good players don't get on base 30-33% of the time, good players get on base closer to 40% of the time.


Especially in the playoffs, and most particularly in a NL park. Otherwise, you don't trade outs for bases with that lineup.

The Yankees' problems are starting pitching and relief pitching. Their disdain for small ball may cost them the occasional game, but I doubt it. However, it could easily come back to bite them eventually, since as FWD points out, execution would be a major concern with this strategy.

Basically, the Yankees overspent on free agent pitching, and they have done so for over a decade now. As others pointed out, true elite pitchers don't become free agents very often. Also, the Yankees seem to overvalue past success, as opposed to recognized indicators of future performance, such as K ratio, WHIP, etc. I also think that management panders to the ignorant fanbase far too often. The organization and fans behave as if the world will end if overrated free agent X signs with another team. It becomes all about egotism and "face," rather than putting together the best possible team.

In contrast, the Red Sox have many of the same organizational problems (media hype and pressure, an overbearing fanbase, etc.), but they make all of their personnel decisions for valid baseball reasons. I can't stand either team, by the way. However, assuming they win, the Red Sox would tend to prove that you can buy a championship in baseball if you spend the money wisely.

[FromWayDowntown]

Especially in the playoffs, and most particularly in a NL park. Otherwise, you don't trade outs for bases with that lineup.

The Yankees' problems are starting pitching and relief pitching. Their disdain for small ball may cost them the occasional game, but I doubt it. However, it could easily come back to bite them eventually, since as FWD points out, execution would be a major concern with this strategy.

Basically, the Yankees overspent on free agent pitching, and they have done so for over a decade now. As others pointed out, true elite pitchers don't become free agents very often. Also, the Yankees seem to overvalue past success, as opposed to recognized indicators of future performance, such as K ratio, WHIP, etc. I also think that management panders to the ignorant fanbase far too often. The organization and fans behave as if the world will end if overrated free agent X signs with another team. It becomes all about egotism and "face," rather than putting together the best possible team.

In contrast, the Red Sox have many of the same organizational problems (media hype and pressure, an overbearing fanbase, etc.), but they make all of their personnel decisions for valid baseball reasons. I can't stand either team, by the way. However, assuming they win, the Red Sox would tend to prove that you can buy a championship in baseball if you spend the money wisely.

I don't think that a team can go into the playoffs thinking that it can bludgeon its way to a title. I think a major failing in the Yankees' team building strategy is that they seem to believe that if they fill a lineup with 9 guys who hit 20 home runs a year, they're going to hit enough 3-run homers over time to win playoff games and win playoff series. I don't think the playoffs work that way.

And this isn't my cry for the Yankees to use more sacrifice bunts -- that was simply an effort to respond to other suggestions. The issue, to me, is situational hitting, which, IMO, requires that there be role players in the lineup to execute in those situations. It might be sacrifice bunts -- and James can offer up all the statistical proof that he wants on that issue; if I'm a manager and I've got my leadoff man on with a 1 run lead in the top of the 8th of a playoff game, I'm going to bunt him over and try to add to my lead and I'm going to ask the guy hitting behind the bunter to try to hit the ball to the right side to advance the runner. I'm not sure that the Yankees would be capable of doing those things on a consistent basis.

I don't disagree that the Yankees have some major structural problems in their pitching staff -- particularly in middle relief and the back-half of their rotation -- and I would agree that all of the small ball in the world won't win games if the pitching staff is routinely getting lit up by opposing lineups.

I just think that along with addressing those major pitching concerns, the Yankees will continue to struggle in the post-season as long as they try to trot 9 offensive All-Stars out every night.

[K-State Spur]

I don't think that a team can go into the playoffs thinking that it can bludgeon its way to a title.

While I personally would agree with your statement...

Of the last 11 World Series Champions, 9 of them played little to no small ball.

[Reggie Miller]

I don't think that a team can go into the playoffs thinking that it can bludgeon its way to a title. I think a major failing in the Yankees' team building strategy is that they seem to believe that if they fill a lineup with 9 guys who hit 20 home runs a year, they're going to hit enough 3-run homers over time to win playoff games and win playoff series. I don't think the playoffs work that way.

And this isn't my cry for the Yankees to use more sacrifice bunts -- that was simply an effort to respond to other suggestions. The issue, to me, is situational hitting, which, IMO, requires that there be role players in the lineup to execute in those situations. It might be sacrifice bunts -- and James can offer up all the statistical proof that he wants on that issue; if I'm a manager and I've got my leadoff man on with a 1 run lead in the top of the 8th of a playoff game, I'm going to bunt him over and try to add to my lead and I'm going to ask the guy hitting behind the bunter to try to hit the ball to the right side to advance the runner. I'm not sure that the Yankees would be capable of doing those things on a consistent basis.

I don't disagree that the Yankees have some major structural problems in their pitching staff -- particularly in middle relief and the back-half of their rotation -- and I would agree that all of the small ball in the world won't win games if the pitching staff is routinely getting lit up by opposing lineups.

I just think that along with addressing those major pitching concerns, the Yankees will continue to struggle in the post-season as long as they try to trot 9 offensive All-Stars out every night.

I think we disagree only in terms of degrees.

As I mentioned, your first post made it clear that executing a small ball strategy is a major concern for this team. We can debate the value of small ball all day, but the bottom line is that the Yankees cannot be relied upon to execute that strategy when needed, since they don't bother to do so even in meaningless games. That was a great point. I knew that the Yankees rarely sacrificed, but I had no idea that it averaged out to less than 20 times per season during the Torre regime. Certainly, being unable to even consider small ball an option at a necessary, critical moment does not help the Yankees.

Generally, small ball has been proven to hurt teams like the Yankees, or even the 2006 Tigers or 2005 White Sox, that have power up and down the order. However, every hitter can't go to the plate looking to pull the ball in every situation, which happens pretty often with the current Yankees' "All-Star" approach. When your pitching is fairly mediocre, this puts a lot of pressure on the "All Stars" to carry the team through offense. I rarely watch the Yankees, but I have seen at least two games this season where they needed base runners to bring the tying run to the plate, but the last three hitters made screaming outs to the warning track trying to hit home runs. (Obviously, other teams make these types of mistakes as well.)

However, if the pitching is good enough, you can live and die by the three-run homer. It worked well enough for Earl Weaver's world series squads with Baltimore. (They also had Jim Palmer, Steve Stone, etc.) I think your point is valid, but the primary problem is still the suspect pitching.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the offensive mentality is a pervasive problem, a product of who these players are. I wouldn't disagree, particularly since power hitting stats determine a position player's salary more than any other factor. My understanding is that you believe this offensive mentality would be a major problem even with better pitching. I wouldn't go quite that far, becuase I tend to think that the bad pitching aggravates the problem and creates the need to "press."

Like K-State Spur, I tend to agree with your conclusions, but all of the statistical studies performed to date indicate that stocking a lineup with power hitters and turning them loose actually scores more runs. These studies do not really account for the unique situation and unrealistic expectations that Steinbrenner has created in New York, however.

We'll never know, but it's fun to debate.

[FromWayDowntown]

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the offensive mentality is a pervasive problem, a product of who these players are. I wouldn't disagree, particularly since power hitting stats determine a position player's salary more than any other factor. My understanding is that you believe this offensive mentality would be a major problem even with better pitching. I wouldn't go quite that far, becuase I tend to think that the bad pitching aggravates the problem and creates the need to "press."

Like K-State Spur, I tend to agree with your conclusions, but all of the statistical studies performed to date indicate that stocking a lineup with power hitters and turning them loose actually scores more runs. These studies do not really account for the unique situation and unrealistic expectations that Steinbrenner has created in New York, however.

We'll never know, but it's fun to debate.

I do enjoy this debate -- I so rarely get to talk about the nuances of baseball, so this is great!

I think my point is as nuanced as you note -- and more nuanced than K-State Spur has acknowledged, though I'll readily admit that I might not be communicating my point as clearly as I should be. I don't disagree that part of the Yankees' problem is a fairly mediocre pitching staff (to be generous) and that solving the pitching problems would go a long way to remedying the Yankees playoff issues. But I also don't think the sole issue for the Yankees is limiting the runs scored by their opponents.

Since the 2004 playoffs, the Yankees' staff has allowed more runs per game in the playoffs than it did in the regular season:

2004: 4.99 r/g (RS); 5.3 r/g (PS)
2005: 4.87 r/g (RS); 5.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 4.73 r/g (RS); 5.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 4.80 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)

I'll admit that the numbers are affected substantially by the relatively small number of games played in the postseason; big offensive games have a much greater effect on those numbers than would be true in the regular season. I'll also admit that the increase number of runs allowed is pretty solid evidence that the issue with the Yankees is a lack of quality pitching.

But it's also interesting to me that in the last 4 years, the Yankees' offensive output per game has increased at playoff time only once (in 2004, when they were able to put up 10 and 19 runs in Games 1 and 2 of the ALCS). In the subsequent years, the Yankees' offensive production has slipped substantially come October:

2004: 5.54 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)
2005: 5.47 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 5.74 r/g (RS); 3.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 5.98 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)

Again, the numbers are certainly skewed to some extent in a given year, but the consistency of the decline is hard to ignore. I think the numbers would generally show that the decrease in run production has been greater than the increase in runs allowed -- though the combination is certainly fatal to any chance to win at playoff time:

2004: +.46 scored per game; +.31 allowed per game
2005: -1.47 scored per game; +.13 allowed per game
2006: -2.24 scored per game; +.77 allowed per game
2007: -1.98 scored per game; +1.2 allowed per game

Again, that doesn't discount the major flaws in the Yankees' pitching staff, but I do think it points out a glaring problem with depending upon 9 bashers who don't hit behind runners and fail to do little things like that. Specifically, if the Yankees stay close to their regular season run production numbers, the pitching would seem to be good enough to keep them in games -- it becomes a big problem that that Yankees can't score consistently and I think the best way to alleviate that problem is to have guys who do the little things in a lineup, guys who discourage a manager from just sitting back and waiting for the long ball. I also don't think the dip in run production is just a matter of hitters pressing -- I think it's a matter of facing better pitching at playoff time and having to make the most of as many opportunities as possible.

I understand the James-ian approach to the game, but I also think that those numbers don't really account for the specific issues of playoff baseball and that they, in any event, while I'm sympathetic to those who take the moneyball-stats heavy approach to making baseball decisions, I still think that observational proof of the value of small ball raises some questions about a purely-statistical view of the game.

[Reggie Miller]

I do enjoy this debate -- I so rarely get to talk about the nuances of baseball, so this is great!

I think my point is as nuanced as you note -- and more nuanced than K-State Spur has acknowledged, though I'll readily admit that I might not be communicating my point as clearly as I should be. I don't disagree that part of the Yankees' problem is a fairly mediocre pitching staff (to be generous) and that solving the pitching problems would go a long way to remedying the Yankees playoff issues. But I also don't think the sole issue for the Yankees is limiting the runs scored by their opponents.

Since the 2004 playoffs, the Yankees' staff has allowed more runs per game in the playoffs than it did in the regular season:

2004: 4.99 r/g (RS); 5.3 r/g (PS)
2005: 4.87 r/g (RS); 5.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 4.73 r/g (RS); 5.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 4.80 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)

I'll admit that the numbers are affected substantially by the relatively small number of games played in the postseason; big offensive games have a much greater effect on those numbers than would be true in the regular season. I'll also admit that the increase number of runs allowed is pretty solid evidence that the issue with the Yankees is a lack of quality pitching.

But it's also interesting to me that in the last 4 years, the Yankees' offensive output per game has increased at playoff time only once (in 2004, when they were able to put up 10 and 19 runs in Games 1 and 2 of the ALCS). In the subsequent years, the Yankees' offensive production has slipped substantially come October:

2004: 5.54 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)
2005: 5.47 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 5.74 r/g (RS); 3.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 5.98 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)

Again, the numbers are certainly skewed to some extent in a given year, but the consistency of the decline is hard to ignore. I think the numbers would generally show that the decrease in run production has been greater than the increase in runs allowed -- though the combination is certainly fatal to any chance to win at playoff time:

2004: +.46 scored per game; +.31 allowed per game
2005: -1.47 scored per game; +.13 allowed per game
2006: -2.24 scored per game; +.77 allowed per game
2007: -1.98 scored per game; +1.2 allowed per game

Again, that doesn't discount the major flaws in the Yankees' pitching staff, but I do think it points out a glaring problem with depending upon 9 bashers who don't hit behind runners and fail to do little things like that. Specifically, if the Yankees stay close to their regular season run production numbers, the pitching would seem to be good enough to keep them in games -- it becomes a big problem that that Yankees can't score consistently and I think the best way to alleviate that problem is to have guys who do the little things in a lineup, guys who discourage a manager from just sitting back and waiting for the long ball. I also don't think the dip in run production is just a matter of hitters pressing -- I think it's a matter of facing better pitching at playoff time and having to make the most of as many opportunities as possible.

I understand the James-ian approach to the game, but I also think that those numbers don't really account for the specific issues of playoff baseball and that they, in any event, while I'm sympathetic to those who take the moneyball-stats heavy approach to making baseball decisions, I still think that observational proof of the value of small ball raises some questions about a purely-statistical view of the game.


Like most statistical approaches, the conclusions formed by Bill James and the SABR Gang work only with a large sample size. In a short series, your sample size is limited to three to five games by definition. I mention this purely becuase most SABRmetricians would say that we don't have enough information to perform a sophisticated analysis of the Yankees' recent payoff exits, period. For our purposes, that's neither here nor there.

I tend to think that the key may be the short series. Every other AL team in the playoffs had better 1-3 starters overall. The fact that the Yankees may have better 4-5 starters never comes into play in the short series. (I'm not saying they do, necessarily.) Obviously, this does come into play in the regular season, and it would be reflected in regular season statistics.

Speaking of the regular season, I would be curious to see the Yankees' splits against AL East opponents, since MLB no longer has a balanced schedule. The AL East has two really good teams (Boston and NY), an above average team (Toronto), and two really awful teams (Baltimore and Tampa). Since the Yankees can't seem to beat the Devil Rays in Tampa for love or money, this may not be as important as I think. However, it did occur to me that the Yankees may be the Phoenix Suns of baseball. That is, their impressive stats could come from blow-outs of inferior teams. In that case, their playoff slumps would just reflect their "normal" performance against the elite teams.

The age of the Yankees, both position players and starting pitching, may be a factor. Regardless of what anyone says, there is no way that this does not affect their collective performance after 6 1/2 months and 162 games. I don't think it was a significant factor this year, but the Yankees looked pretty tired against the Tigers last year.

Having given this some thought, I believe you are on to something. The problem is that we can't really prove or disprove your thesis. Also, it is likely that we are overlooking some other factor, such as the above suggestions.