The '98 Yankees laugh at 50 losses
So the 2009 Yankees have the best record in baseball at 91-50. It struck me that 50 losses was the total for the 1998 team throughout the playoffs! At this point, the 'Greatest Team of the Post-Free Agency Era' was 100-41, nine games ahead of the current Yankee squad. They proceeded to go 25-9 the rest of the way, including 11-2 in the playoffs.
I remember listening to 770 WABC during that season, and Michael Kay (back when he shared the airwaves with John Sterling) was expounding the virtues of the Yankees, saying how a baseball team doing that was a once in a generation occurrence. Being only in high school, I naively thought it wouldn't be that seldom. After all, why couldn't the '99 Yankees do similar, as long as they fielded virtually the same team?
The 1999 Yanks were not as good (though they did have an even better playoff record of 11-1) despite trading for future first ballot (at the time) Hall of Famer Roger Clemens.
What was it that made the '98 team so special? The only major personnel difference was trading David Wells for Clemens, who was coming off consecutive Cy Young winning seasons in Toronto. But for whatever reason, he didn't match Wells' '98 year (18-4, 3.49 ERA) or live up to his lofty expectations (14-10, 4.60).
But it was more than just one pitching change. The lineup lacked a superstar but was solid all the way through. 10 players hit 10 or more homers; eight hit 17 or more, yet none topped 30.
The '09 squad has a chance to put up similar numbers. Through 141 games, nine players have at least 10 homers (Eric Hinske is sitting on seven), and a ridiculous seven have at least 20 homers. Unlike the 1998 team, the current lineup does have a legitimate superstar (guess who) and a border-liner in Tex.
On the pitching side, there's no contest - of the '98 team's six starters, not one had an ERA over 4.24; of '09's six main starters, only one has an ERA under 4.10.
Do the '09 Yankees have a touch of the '98 team in them? Yes, but we should hope for more than a touch.
0 recs |
23 comments
|
Comments
that 98 team was so good it wasn't even believable
it is thanks to that team that I am a skeptic
i don’t belive that anything exists
we’re all just dreams/video games
dumbass writer
why would the yankees laugh at them themselves? even if they play 50/50 ball rest of the way they still can get 100 wins. dumb novice writer trying to make famous of himself with a dumb collumn. like the nice person that i am, heres a tip…write something better that you didnt just copy from a 5 yr old…
nice person that you are?
i actually thought that this was an interesting article, comparing the great 98 team to this team that is pretty darn good itself
the title of this article is just a firgure of speech, but obviously you couldn’t understand that
by Brian5517209 on Sep 11, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
couldn't agree more,
i also enjoyed the article, but some people are just better off keeping there stupid remarks to themselves. Uzamaki, why would bash a fellow fan who’s spends there time sharing there thoughts and writing with us so we can enjoy something to read while enjoying lunch
98 yankees
Lead the league in ERA, WHIP, OPS, and runs scored. That’s total domination.
98 Yankees....
aka…what this team would have been with a healthy Wang.
What the f$%k is the internet?
thank you FB
thats all I was tryna say a couple days ago—LOL
I think the ’98 team set the bar, and since some of that core still exists, the same will to win is there.
-I'm the straw that stirs the drink.........Then I drink the drink too.
by ReggieARodJeter on Sep 11, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Once in a lifetime team...
…that was 1998.
Just an amazing year. In the days before you had to pay for MLB gameday audio, I could listen to the games on my computer in my dorm on WABC Radio’s website, and every night it was the same story: Yanks win.
by New York Sports Jerk on Sep 11, 2009 8:38 AM EDT reply actions
It’s pretty atypical for a team – any team – to post a .700 winning percentage over the course of a season.
1998 was the perfect storm. You had a team that was already very good, didn’t catch any bad breaks, and probably caught many, many good ones. They had a run differential of over 300 that season, which is truly incredible.
actually
125 and 50 translates to a winning %age of . . . .714!
now THATS an auspicious number.
by NYer in a strange land on Sep 11, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I looked up the
98 Yanks record after the Yankees had played game 139 this year. And the 98 Yankees were 100-39 at that point. That is amazing. Lets just hope this Years Yankees team doesnt follow suit with the ’01 Mariners. That would be a real pisser.
I remember
How awful they looked the first series to start the yr and buy interleague play Peter Gammons was bagging on the NL teams that had to face them stating that it did not matter who faces the mighty Yankees they do not stand a chance.It is too bad that Wang and Nady never had a chance to help.Remember how good Cleveland was that yr also?The 98 team in my opinion faced better teams at the top.No 80 win Tigers snuck in that post season.
by cashman bashman on Sep 11, 2009 10:59 AM EDT reply actions
Also consider that
the ’98 Yankees probably had slightly bettter fielding and were probably better at small ball play. Bullpen I guess is a toss up (Rivera, Stanton, Nelson, Mendoza vs. Rivera, Hughes, Ace, Robertson).
Regardless, 1998 team went 11-2 in the post season (followed by 11-1 in ‘99 and 11-5 in ’00), so that’s the ultimate bar. Esp since we’ve been 5-13 since Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS.
Did I get that right – from 98-00, 33 – 8 in post season play? Dang, that’s amazing.
Middle relief
The ’98 Yanks had a very good lineup from top to bottom and good starting pitching and of course Rivera. Where they excelled and blew away every other team was in mddle relief. They had Stanton and Nelson who had career years and Mendoza for long relief as well. They lost something like 1 game all year when leading after 6 innings.
I have to disagree about the bullpens. I think that this year’s version is better than ’98s team. Going player by player:
The lefties: Stanton had a down year in ’98, with a 5.47 era and 13 hrs allowed.
Coke has been slightly better, with a 4.97 era and 10 hrs allowed.
Slight advantage: ’09 Yankees
Lloyd had a career year, with a 1.67 era and a 0.85 whip.
Marte was terrible in April-May, hurt May-August, fantastic September.
Advantage: ’98 Yankees
The long man: Mendoza went 10-2, with a 3.25 era
Aceves is 10-1 with a 3.72 era
Advantage: Even
The righty middle man: Nelson had a 3.79 era and 3 saves
Robertson has a 3.29 era and 13.4 K/9
Advantage: ’09 Yankees
The mop-up guy: Darren Holmes had a 3.33 era in 51.1 innings
Bruney has a 4.18 era in 32.1 innings
Advantage: ’98 Yankees
The closer: ‘98 Rivera had a 1.91 era and 36 saves
’09 Rivera has a 1.72 era and 36 saves
Advantage: Even
The X-Factor: Phil Hughes – What can I say about him that you don’t already know?
Advantage: ’09 Yankees
And the final tally: ’09 Yankees win 3-2-2
Little correction
…as of now, there is “only” seven, not eight, players sitting at 20 or more home runs on the ‘09 squad. In fact, as of today, there are eight players with 17 or more in 2009, just like the 1998 team had for the season, as it’s written in the article. 7 at 20 is a new team record, and is tying the MLB record. Jeter could set a new record with three more bombs.
I wish i got to really witness those great 90's teams
i was like 3 during the ’98 season.
whats a signature
i have a bad memory
i can only remember ’01 season from now which sucks becuase those seasons were heartbreaking. im so hopeful this season can be
just as great as those championship seasons
whats a signature
by GTWYankee on Sep 11, 2009 8:11 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I remember them all..
The absolute GLEE in ’96, the disappointment in 97, and the JOY of 98 – 00. 01 sucked, then well…. Yeah… Here we are.

by 





















