I was trapped in the car this morning listening to Boomer and Cartman on the Fan.  They had Harold Reynolds on and he said the Yankees were making a huge mistake by moving Joba to the rotation.  His logic was jaw-dropping. He said that since the Yankees were 37-9 (or something like that) in games in which Joba appears as a reliever,  and since Joba could appear in 50 more games this season as a reliever, the Yankees were essentially giving up 40 wins by moving him to the rotation. In the rotation he might only help win 15 more games.

The erudite Boomer and Cartman complimented Reynolds on putting numbers to their gut feeling about the decision.  All agreed it was a historic blunder.

I'm sure Mike and the Mad Dog aren't much better.  Just because somebody has numbers, doesn't mean those numbers are right.  When oh when are intelligent voices going to appear on sports radio? When oh when am I going to stop listening and just put on NPR?

 

 

 

Not that anyone would care but here is my take on this season.

 

Continue reading this post »

By all accounts, the Goose should get in.  No question in my mind that it is deserved as I think he was clearly better than Sutter, inducted last year, and is in the ballpark with Rollie Fingers.

He may be the only inductee but I would like to see Raines and Blyleven in as well.  Raines is arguably the second best leadoff man of all time and certainly since 1950.  A very high OBP, a phenomenal stolen base success rate, and even some power should make the case a simple one.  As Blyleven shows however, the writers aren't convinced by numbers so my guess is that both will remain on the outside.

I'd also vote for McGwire but that obviously raises a whole other set of issues beyond performance. My short take is that we will never sort out whose numbers were helped by steroids and how much so I prefer to vote based strictly on accomplishments on the field.  I'd be lying if I didn't say I felt a bit conflicted however.

First, let me say that Cleveland is a very good baseball team.  They are not a fluke and if the Yankees played them 1000 times we'd probably win a little over 50% of the games.  So no one should be surprised that Cleveland won a 5 game series.

Second, in one way I am more depressed this year than the previous few seasons since I think the Yankees were better this year than any time since 2003.  On the other hand, I am less depressed since moving forward the Yankees are (potentially) in better shape than since early in the Torre era.

With that in mind, here are my thoughts regarding changes during the offseason.

1.    I think Torre should go but it has to be handled very carefully.  The team is moving to a new generation and it is a good time for a change.  His in-game skills are weak.  However, if he is unceremoniously dumped then, Mo, Posada, and Pettitte may follow (and it would be a dishonor to a man who has contributed a great deal to the Yankees).  He should be given a generous paycheck to become a senior adviser and encouraged to give a farewell speech about how great it is to be a Yankee and how this team is on the verge of something special.  

2.    Keep Mo, Posada, and Pettitte.  This isn't sentiment speaking as all three still make huge contributions at positions where they would be very difficult to replace.

3.    Give A-rod a generous extension but if he opts out then wave goodbye.  As a commenter in another thread mentioned this may hurt the 2012-2013 Yankees but his contributions right now are too big to forgo at the current price (with Texas holding some of the tab).

4.    Offer Giambi to Billy Beane and pay most of his salary.  

5.    Keep the rest of the lineup as is.  Carve a first baseman out of Minky, Duncan and Betemit.  Put Damon in left field.  Pick up Abreu's option.  This lineup will still score north of 900 runs.

6.    Keep a Hughes, Pettitte, Chamberlain Wang, Mussina/Kennedy rotation (this the order I expect them to start in next year's playoff series).

7.    Get bullpen help for Mo.  I think Britton will eventually be a very good 8th inning guy but start him in middle relief.  Ohlendorf can be a contributor as well.  Farnsworth probably is untradeable.  Sign two more quality relievers as the major off season acquisition.  I don't know the market well enough yet to make suggestions.  Then make sure Torre's successor doesn't destroy any arms.

8.  Make reservations for the 2008 playoffs.

The Red Sox did the Yankees a big favor by choosing the Wednesday starting series.  Now the Yankees only have to win one of the three games started by C.C. or Carmona as long as they pound Byrd and Westbrook.  I think they'll pull out one of the first two and win in four.  I expect a big start from Clemens on Sunday but the other of the Yankee Stadium game could be tense if Moose starts and a slugfest ensues.  Hopefully Joba and Mo can get us through it.

I'm not sure why the Red Sox chose to face Lackey and Escobar twice particularly when the dropoff between the second and third pitcher is sharper for the Angels than the Sox.  Still, I think the Sox will pull it out as the rest will help their tired bullpen.  I expect this to be a very tight series unlike when these teams met in 2004.

In the NL, aka the AAAA league, the Tigers would be the favorite if they were there.  I think the Dbacks need to win both of Webb's starts to even have a chance and since he will be going against Zambrano that's not a given.  The Cubs lineup is peaking and the heart of the order, Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez is the best in the NL.  Cubs in 4.

The Rockies-Phillies is the hardest one to call.  Both teams are hot, have strong lineups and questionable pitching.  I like the 2-4 starters for the Rockies better so I'll go with Colorado in 5.

Should be a blast!

While both Seattle and Detroit trail the Yanks by three games, they are worlds apart.  I think Seattle's season effectively ended this week as they needed to take at least two of three from the Yankees.  The Tigers meanwhile got Rogers back last night and are playing better of late.  I don't think they will catch the Yanks but it wouldn't surprise me to see them make us sweat.

Feel free to post your own here:

AL East:

Yankees
Red Sox (wild card)
Blue Jays
Orioles
Devil Rays

Boring.  The way the division has gone 7 of the last nine years.  While I am a bit nervous about the Yankee rotation, I like the bullpen as the best since the Nelson/Stanton peak and the lineup as a potentially great one.  Boston may be the second best team in the league, particualrly if Dice K lives up to the hype.  Toronto will regress and Baltimore and Tampa will improve but not by enough to pass Toronto.

AL Central

Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota
Chicago
Kansas City

With Sizemore, Hafner, Martinez, the Cleveland lineup rivals NY and Boston.  The injury to Lee is worrisome but the bullpen is improved as should be their luck.  Detroit will fight Boston/NY for the wild card but the Rogers injury kills them.  Minnesota is committing hari kiri (sp?) starting Silva, Ponson, and Ortiz over the kids.

AL West

LA
Texas
Oakland
Seattle

When was the last time this division was so weak. I pick the Angels by default but dread them in a division series in October.  The Rangers will surprise but the post-Showalter benefit goes only so far.  This is the weakest A's team of the Beane era.

NL East

Atlanta
Mets (wild card)
Phillies
Marlins
Nationals

Non-east coasters will hate this but I wouldn't be surprised by Boston-Yankee and Braves-Mets championship series.  Hudson is back and Chuck James will be a solid third starter behind a strong lineup.  The Mets need another starter or two or three but their hitters are the best in the NL.  Philly's rotation strikes me as a mile wide and an inch deep.  The Nationals have the potential to be historically bad.

NL Central

Milwaukee
St. Louis
Pittsburgh
Chicago
Houston
Cincinnati

Is it possible for an entire division to finish at 81-81 (ok except Cincinnati).  This division is  a crapshoot so might as well pick a team that hasn't sniffed the postseason in a generation.  The Brewers kids grow up and the pitchers are solid.  The Cards just got too lucky last October.    Pittsburgh will surprise

NL West

Los Angeles
San Diego
Arizona
Colorado
San Francisco

The Dodgers just have too much talent to make up for their stupid offseason signings (Garciaparra and Gonzales, not Schmidt).  San Diego will fight for the division and the wild card but their lineup has too many holes.  I like Arizona a lot but too many kids have to do well.  It could happen.  

My ballot would include Ripken, Gwynn, Gossage, Blyleven, and yes McGwire.  Ripken and Gwynn are no-brainers.  Blyleven was an excellent pitcher for lousy teams for an awfully long time.

As for McGwire, I think the players have to be judged by what they did on the field unless we know with absolute certainty that they cheated to achieve those accomplishments that make them Hall worthy.  

Let's hear your ballots.

Like many Yankee fans, I followed the playoffs ensuing the Yankees departure with frustration as teams clearly inferior to the Bombers played on and in the case of the Cardinals eventually won it all.

As I've diaried previously however, this is not an unfamiliar feeling.  The 2002 Angels are the only recent WS champ that I thought was clearly superior to that year's Yankee team (the 04 and 05 Sox of varying colors were on a par with the Yanks).  

While explanation after explanation is offered, I keep coming back to the role of luck in baseball.  If the Yankees and Tigers played 45 games, the Yanks would win a majority most of the time.  However if they play 5, then the Yankees would win only slightly more than 50% of the time.

Here is what I'm not sure about however:  The same is not true in pro basketball or football (I don't follow hockey).  There, it seems the better team wins an individual game far more often than in baseball, and in the case of the NBA, a 5 or 7 game series almost all the time.  

What is different about baseball?

Since our last World Championship here are the teams we've lost to:

2001 Diamondbacks
2002 Angels
2003 Marlins
2004 some obnoxious team
2005 Angels
2006 Tigers

The only one of these teams that I thought was better than the Yankees (and by better I mean would beat them 55 games out of 100 or so) was the 2002 Angeles.  On the other hand the only team that was worse in my view was the 2003 Marlins.  I haven't looked up third order Pythagorean records or anything like that.  This is just a rough impression.

Before that we had won 12 out of 13 postseason series from 1996-2000.  What is different? Well for one thing the 1998 and 1999 teams were clearly better than everyone they faced except possibly the 1999 Braves. But that still leaves the question of why did the teams from those 5 years not lose to inferior teams and occasionally beat superior ones?  This is the question Cashman and co. should be pondering. I see several possible explanations none of which are entirely satisfactory.

1. Heart.  A lot of commenters on this and other blogs cite a lack of heart on this team.  I don't see it.  Does anyone think A-Rod doesn't desperately want a title? How about Giambi and Mussina?  No, I think the answer has to be between the lines.
2.  Bullpen.  A great bullpen is often cited as a key in the postseason.  While Mo is a constant between eras, the setup crew has deteriorated.  Still, how many playoff games have the Yankees lost since 2001 because of poor setup men?  It's hard to see this being more than a marginal contributor.
3.  Defense.  The 1996-2000 teams were good defensively, probably better than the 2001-2006 Yanks.  I'd love to see some research on the contribution defense made in the last 6 playoff losses but until I see something concrete, I am skeptical.
4.  Starting pitching.  This is the explanation I most want to believe.  The 1996-2000 teams had Cone and El Duque (and Wells in 1998) who were huge big game pitchers.  Still there are two problems with this explanation.  The 2002 Angels, the best team we've lost to in my view, had very mediocre starters.  And if starters are that important in the postseason, why haven't the Braves won more titles?
5.  Luck.  This is the explanation I keep coming back to.  When two good teams play a 5 or 7 game series, the better one will lose nearly half of the time.  Little things like a Tony Clark ground rule double, or Bubba Crosby and Gary Sheffield crashing into each other or a rainout forcing the Yanks to face Verlander and Zumaya in the shadows can make a determinative difference.

All right, this is something of a catharsis for me.  But if anyone has thoughts or knows of research on why teams win postseason series, I'd love to hear it.