The errors by Kazmir and Kendrick looked really bad, and Scioscia made some tactical moves that I disagreed with. I would have pitched Weaver last night, and I would not have walked ARod. But the idea that this series was an "embarrassment" (I heard a little of this last night; I guess it was mostly venting) for Scioscia as a manager or the Angels as a team/organization is ridiculous. The Yankees are a better team than the Angels are. The Angels won 97 games, another division title, took out the Red Sox in style, and played the Yankees tough. As they have through most of Scioscia's tenure, they played as well as one could expect.

Had the Red Sox beaten them again, I could see the ranting. Given what happened, I can't.

For all the terrible decisions in this series, I'm a lot more comfortable having Scioscia manage my team than letting this guy continue to write articles. Nice use of selective endpoints. Go back 8 years and they are a 5-5 in postseason series. And STFU about the steroids in 2002. That team beat Barry Bonds, who had more steroids in his system than the Angel team combined. Plus if the postseason wins of that season don't count because of steroids, then neither do some of the postseason losses to teams with known steroid users.

The Yankees are a better team than the Angels are. The Angels won 97 games, another division title, took out the Red Sox in style, and played the Yankees tough. As they have through most of Scioscia's tenure, they played as well as one could expect.

I agree. I wish it had turned out better, but all things considered I'm happy with the Angel postseason. Finally beating Boston was a great moment, and can't be diminished by losing to the Yankees (who must feel about the same way we did 2 weeks ago, finally getting the rallymonkey off their collective back). The errors kept the Angels from having a shot in the 9th, but they did score a run off Rivera in Yankee stadium, first time since 2001 anyone did that in the postseason. And it happened with Vladimir driving in Chone, probably the last time I'll ever get to see that. Those guys have been a lot of fun to watch over the years.

they have through most of Scioscia's tenure, they played as well as one could expect.

I think this goes too far. I was shocked at the baserunning mistakes and the errors; as a Yankee fan, I think I've seen more of them in this series than I have in the entirety of the Scioscia Era of Angels baseball.

I figured they'd play crisp, tight ball and win in 6. If you had asked me before the series, I'd have taken the under on four errors and two baserunning gaffes resulting in outs.

My guess is the Angels gave the Yankees more of a fight than the Phillies are about to, and the Angels will therefore be crowned runnerup for best team of 2009. Yanks in 5.

It's true -- losing a game to Andy Pettite and Alex Rodriguez is proof positive that the 2002 Angels were a steroid fluke. Wait, what?

Yeah, there was some yippy defense, but the baserunning errors are part of what the team does (I think they led the league in outs on the basepaths, and are in any case both helpfully aggressive and unhelpfully careless). Point being that it isn't some new playoff-only choke situation. On the pitch before Vlad's gaffe I leaned over to my friend and said "Believe or not, Vlad is stupid enough to get picked off here." I just didn't think it would be the right fielder doing it.

The Angels lost this series because their terrific offense mostly failed to show up. Andy's dandy, but a team that finishes second in runs (and crushes LH starters) needs to do better than 1 run against the guy. Part of that is not effing up on the basepaths, but another part is just hitting the damned ball.

There are baserunning mistakes caused by aggressively going first-to-third or stretching a single into a double, and there are ones caused by dumbtastic mental errors. It's not like the Angels were tagging up on shallow fly balls or taking ill-advised SB attempts; they were rounding bases too far and getting doubled off on fly balls.

Most notable were the eight errors, all of them legitimate and several of them costly. Even uglier were the mistakes on the basepaths, none more hideous than Vladimir Guerrero getting doubled on a routine fly to shallow right on Sunday.

Do people honestly believe that at this level errors and baserunning mistakes are the coach's fault? Seriously? Vlad was thrown out because he was lazy, not because of an "aggressive style". He was just an idiot. Abreu too. Does Scioscia really need to teach Figgins and Aybar how to call each other off on a pop-up? Does he need to spend extra time with Howie Kendrick teaching him how to catch a ball thrown right to him?

Running into outs via the contact play, walking A-Rod with two outs in the ninth when he's the tying run, pinch hitting for Mike Napoli, these are the things you can blame Scioscia for. But these aren't 13 year olds on the field. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to blame the manager for assuming that his players can make a play that they learned to make (or should have learned to make) when they were in Little League.

After reading this article, I can think of one person who should be embarrassed, and it's not Mike Scioscia.

Scioscia loves ignoring the numbers and playing favorites, and because his clubs keep winning, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

If it wasn't for that one thing that gives him the benefit of the doubt, he would certainly get fired.

Morning after. That's when the 2nd place team/athlete is a loser. By noon, hopefully, that's done.

Still there was a pattern of Scioscia's moves not working. I mean, live by the hunch and all of that. But the errors, mental or otherwise, were not the result of the manager have the wrong players in the wrong places. The pitching, on the other hand....

But isn't making 8 errors in 6 games, for a team that prides itself on playing smart yet aggressive baseball, at least a little bit embarrassing? Maybe that's not Scioscia's fault, but they really played crappy D in this series. You're down 1 run in the bottom of the 8th, and you need to get 3 more outs before trying the difficult task of tying it up off Rivera. It's hard enough to win in such situations without throwing the ball all around the park; committing those errors to put the nail in your own coffin just looks pretty bad.

Vlad probably thought that ball had a decent chance of dropping for a hit, and was worried about being forced out at 2B if it did. He didn't read it well at all, but it looks like he was indecisive and waited in the worst possible place, too far to get back to first and not far enough to have made it to second anyway. He should have just guessed. Either stick at first or keep running to third. From where he was he was going to be out one way or another.

But isn't making 8 errors in 6 games, for a team that prides itself on playing smart yet aggressive baseball, at least a little bit embarrassing?

Sure, but it beats what 27 teams were doing last night: Watching on TV with no more baseball to look forward to.

committing those errors to put the nail in your own coffin just looks pretty bad.

Stuff happens.

But isn't making 8 errors in 6 games, for a team that prides itself on playing smart yet aggressive baseball, at least a little bit embarrassing?

I don't mean to pick on you, Joe, but this is really, really, a dumb phrase, and I don't blame you for using it, since it has become the media narrative. But is there a team out there that doesn't pride itself on playing smart and aggressive baseball? Does a manager take the mic in a post-game presser and say "Well, as you can see, we won again because of our philosophy of stupid baseball. What can I say, we work hard at playing stupid baseball, and we just keep winning".

I figured they'd play crisp, tight ball and win in 6.

This sounds like Post-2004 Yankee-fan fatalism. There was no reason to pick the Angels in 6 in this series, and that is not a knock on them. The biggest keys to the series were that the Yankees have Sabathia and Teixeira now, and they are therefore better at run prevention and better overall than the Yankee teams the Angels clocked were, and that they are paying more attention to the bullpen and the bench and how to construct them. That was clear before the series, and it's clearer now.

Scioscia did some odd stuff, and the Angels made some silly mistakes. Take those things away, and I still think the Yankees win. The botched popup didn't cost them game 2; the errors didn't cost them game 6. The IBB didn't cost them Game 5. Games 1 and 4 were Yankee-controlled all the way. Saunders/Oliver/Santana/Kazmir gave up only three earned runs.

I thought Fuentes would hurt them, and he did, but I don't know how much of that was Scioscia and how much was the FO.

I think the Yankee bench was poorly constructed for the playoffs. They chose two pinch-runners and no serviceable pinch-hitters. Yes, Matsui/Posada may need to be pinch-run for in a big spot, but including someone like Hinske on the roster means non-embarassing pinch-hit appearances, and maybe even a start in RF at some point.

I hope that they rectify this for the Series - I think Freddy Guzman should all sorts of be dropped from the roster.

I hope that they rectify this for the Series - I think Freddy Guzman should all sorts of be dropped from the roster.

They could also drop the 3rd catcher if they'd stop this Molina starting nonsense. Actually, I'd like them to drop Molina and keep Cervelli. Cervelli's a much better baseball player right now. Good defense, better hitter, decent runner.

But, I'm not sure there are 2 guys worth adding. Hinske and ????? A RH bat would be ideal. But who?

They chose two pinch-runners and no serviceable pinch-hitters

.

Maybe, but that goes with how Girardi runs the team and with the DH rule. With two-three games in the NL park, my guess is Hinske replaces Guzman for the WS. Also, Gardner is not just a PR--he is used for D as well.

But who?

Is Shelley Duncan eligible?

Is Shelley Duncan eligible?

Should be. But who does he pinch hit for besides the pitcher? And he has negative defensive value.

Xavier Nady would come in real handy about now.

Should be. But who does he pinch hit for besides the pitcher? And he has negative defensive value.

Right, he's almost useless, but the one situation where they've used Cerevelli was pinch hitting for the pitcher in extra innings and Shelley would have been better there. It won't really matter either way.

It won't really matter either way.

Unless, of course, it does. I expect a close, hard fought series.

I hope someone in the Yankees organization can refresh Girardi on proper use of the bench/bullpen before Wednesday.

I suspect that Girardi won't blithely give up the DH in the Yankee Stadium part of the Series.

The Angels were a bit embarrassing in the series. Eight errors is a lot in six games and there were some other instances of bad base running and poor defense lumped in. I also thought Scoscia did not do a particularly good job on any number of decisions.

But it's six games. It sucks that it happened on the biggest stage but it happens. I think you are reading too much into it if you change your opinion of the Angels, their season or Scoscia based on the last week.

I think the Yankee bench was poorly constructed for the playoffs.

So? The frontline talent is unmatched in baseball. Seven of the nine starters with an OPS+ over 120? C'mon, let's not downplay just how good these guys are. The last three months of the regular season, they went 59-27. The Yankees were expected to win, should have been expected to win, and it's not an accident that they did win.

Scioscia did some odd stuff, and the Angels made some silly mistakes. Take those things away, and I still think the Yankees win.

This. The Angels are a really good team, with a lot of very good players. The Yankees just have better players, and they played better. The end.

So? The frontline talent is unmatched in baseball. Seven of the nine starters with an OPS+ over 120? C'mon, let's not downplay just how good these guys are. The last three months of the regular season, they went 59-27. The Yankees were expected to win, should have been expected to win, and it's not an accident that they did win.

So don't worry about bench construction? You're so great that other teams should quake at your very being?

I never said that the Yankee frontline guys were not the reason they won. At the same time, I don't think they're so much better than everyone else that they shouldn't take every opportunity to be able to win the series.

You're so great that other teams should quake at your very being?

When people are giving IBBs with two outs and nobody on in the ninth of a 1-run game, you have to think they're quaking a little.

I never said that the Yankee frontline guys were not the reason they won. At the same time, I don't think they're so much better than everyone else that they shouldn't take every opportunity to be able to win the series.

But in a short series, frontline talent is far more important. Your 4th outfielders aren't as important, your utility guy isn't as important, the back of your rotation isn't as important. C'mon, Erik, don't downplay their dominance; they won more games, scored more runs, and had a larger run differential than anyone else in either league. I'm still completely baffled that you thought the Yankees should NOT have been favored coming, and I'm still beyond completely baffled that you thought that they only had a coin-flip chance of winning the series after they were up 3-1. The Yankees had plenty of chances to win Game 3, and they really should have won Game 5 as well.

Until about Game 5, it didn't occur to me that an inferior (in my eyes) Marlins team could beat the Yankees in the Series a few years ago. Yet they did. I've seen a goodly amount of teams - my favorite and otherwise - be great in the regular season and lay an egg in the playoffs.

I fully admit that the fan beat around the analyst in me when making predictions about this series. Despite desperate attempts by Red Sox fans to paint it this way, I submit that this phonomenon, along with the start of human civilization, did not start in 2004. For me, it started in 2001.

The Yankees were the better team in the regular season. The Yankees won this series fair and square. These two statements don't correlate as nicely as I think they ought to in the postseason.

These two statements don't correlate as nicely as I think they ought to in the postseason.

Just because anything can happen in a short series doesn't mean anything will. Saying that the team that's performed the best all season isn't the favorite? That's just the pessimist fanboy talking. Fortunately for you, all fanboyism is excused in the playoffs. If you're not a fanboy in October, then you're just not a fan, right?

Until about Game 5, it didn't occur to me that an inferior (in my eyes) Marlins team could beat the Yankees in the Series a few years ago.

League adjustment aside, the Marlins team as it was then constructed--following the call-up of Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera--had the best record in baseball.

The Fox broadcasters made a point that the Angels' errors and mistakes were the result of a Yankees' team which puts so much pressure on the opposing team that it forces them to fall into that trap. Thinking back to some of the Angels' most glaring errors, that didn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not like the Yankees have so much speed that the Angels' infielders have to hurry more than they would against other teams. But, then again, maybe I'm not remembering the right plays.

The Fox broadcasters made a point that the Angels' errors and mistakes were the result of a Yankees' team which puts so much pressure on the opposing team that it forces them to fall into that trap. Thinking back to some of the Angels' most glaring errors, that didn't make a lot of sense to me.

The Yankees didn't force anything. The Angels choked. They looked like Reche Caldwell out there. Plain and simple. They let themselves be intimidated. This is entirely their fault.

I don't like using the term "choke" to describe what I saw. "F*** up" is more appropriate. If Scott Kazmir was a choker, then I don't see how he gets Derek Jeter with runner on third, no out, and prevents a run from scoring. Or how from that point, between him and Weaver they minimized the damage and allowed only 1 more run to score.

Since they are committed to 2 years of Kazmir in the rotation, I'm glad his throw down the RF line wsn't the last one he made for 2009. I was screaming for his head at that point, but he recovered decently.

Is this selective memory on my part, or have the Yankees been the beneficiary of an unusual amount of messing up by their post-season opponents in the past 15 years? Yes, it's true that when you play 150-ish playoff games that stuff will happen, but it sure seems that the Mets tripping over themselves in 2000, Giambi not sliding, the Angels multiple misplays (fielding and running), the Braves making more than their share of key defensive miscues.... add up to more-than-expected gift-wrapped packages. It would be like if the Celtics or Lakers always had their opponents miss free throws in the last minutes in the finals.

I think it's selective memory. Between 2001 and 2007 Yankee opponents played pretty well. The biggest head scratcher by an opponent was Grady Little's slow hook in 2003. The Yankees themselves did a lot of messing up. I'm thinking of A-Rod's glove slap in 2004, Tom Gordon's post-barfing gopherball, All the errors against the Tigers in 2006 (Sheff proved you can't just put anyone at 1B). And then this can't be attributed to the opponent, but the bugs getting to Joba in 2007 was a strange amount of bad karma going against the Yankees.

Is this selective memory on my part, or have the Yankees been the beneficiary of an unusual amount of messing up by their post-season opponents in the past 15 years?

Mystique.

Aura.

Jeter.

FISTPUMP!

I agree with AROM (#33). The Angels just didn't execute. Whether they would have won had they executed is a fair question. My guess is that we'd be playing Game 7 tonight if they had, but I don't know that the Angels would have fared any better a third time against Sabathia than they did the first two.

-- MWE

HAH! Fuentes throws A-Rod a curve and we play tonight for all the marbles. The Angels handed this series to the Yankees a few times before they finally, almost grudgingly took it.

I leaned over to my friend and said "Believe or not, Vlad is stupid enough to get picked off here."

Thanks a lot, #######.

The Yankees didn't force anything. The Angels choked. They looked like Reche Caldwell out there. Plain and simple. They let themselves be intimidated. This is entirely their fault.

This is getting ridiculous. The Angels didn't fumble the series away, the Yankees took it from them. NY pitching dominated in Games 1, 4, and 5; of the games that could have gone either way, the Angels were very fortunate to win Game 3, and Girardi handed them Game 5. The Angels didn't help themselves with the errors, but even if they hadn't made any of those errors, the Yankees were still going to win this series going away. This talking down of the Yankees is really outrageous. They're U.S. Steel, not some mom-and-pop outfit. They had more talent, and they played like it.

My guess is that we'd be playing Game 7 tonight if they had, but I don't know that the Angels would have fared any better a third time against Sabathia than they did the first two.

Depends what you mean by execute. If we're talking about either of the bunts, then Yankees still win. If executing means Morales gets a big hit after Torii and Vlad reach base in the 6th, or they manage to score runs off Rivera in back to back innings, then the Angels might have won.

HAH! Fuentes throws A-Rod a curve and we play tonight for all the marbles

Or the Yankees get two more big hits and they sweep.

Depends what you mean by execute. If we're talking about either of the bunts, then Yankees still win. If executing means Morales gets a big hit after Torii and Vlad reach base in the 6th, or they manage to score runs off Rivera in back to back innings, then the Angels might have won.

Right. Like I said in post #1, Kazmir and Kendrick's errors looked really bad and did seal the game, but you can't count on scoring again off Rivera. The Angels just didn't do enough off of Pettitte, and I am not sure you call that "execution." It's like any other game: some of it was good pitching by Pettitte, some was bad at-bats by the Angels, some was just the breaks. IOW, baseball.


Also, speaking of "choking" what about Jeter's botching that grounder that bounced right to Cano? Did he "choke" too?

I am not trying to patronize the Angels (gritty little Angels or whatever) but mostly I just saw a good team losing to one that was a little better.

I am not trying to patronize the Angels (gritty little Angels or whatever) but mostly I just saw a good team losing to one that was a little better.

I wonder how much the errors the Angels and Twins made came about because they looked across the field and saw a clearly more talented team, and though to themselves, "Gotta make that extra play," and reaching for something that wasn't there.

Wrong thread.

League adjustment aside, the Marlins team as it was then constructed--following the call-up of Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera--had the best record in baseball.

Is league adjustment necessary for 2003? The NL went 137-115 in interleague play that season, 129-123 the season before, and 120-132 in 2001.

League adjustment aside, the Marlins team as it was then constructed--following the call-up of Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera--had the best record in baseball.

And yet, if Steve Bartman stays home or Alex Gonzalez remembers how to field a routine grounder, the Marlins never get to the WS. Baseball's funny that way.

HAH! Fuentes throws A-Rod a curve and we play tonight for all the marbles. The Angels handed this series to the Yankees a few times before they finally, almost grudgingly took it.

Quite true.

This is getting ridiculous. The Angels didn't fumble the series away, the Yankees took it from them.

That's definitely a more ridiculous comment than what preceeded it. I mean, c'mon...did you even watch last night's game?

That's definitely a more ridiculous comment than what preceeded it. I mean, c'mon...did you even watch last night's game?

The Yankees were winning that series, at least this time around, regardless of the mistakes the Angels made. The Yankees had a little more talent, they made a few more plays, that was that. The Angels had a very good team, had laid waste to a roughly equally good team just a week ago, but they happened to run into a slightly more talented team that was playing even better. It's not a choke. Not every series has to have this story attached to it.

Agreed; only a series where a team hands over two or more games deserve it. Like, say, this one...

Nope. Try again. Games 1 and 4 were not handed over, CC dominated. Game 2, I'll say 50% was handed over. Izturis gets the out, or takes the safe play at first, then either: Posada gets a hit the next AB and wins it, or the game continues further into extra, where it's close to a 50/50 proposition.

As ugly as the 8th inning was last night, it changed only the score, not the outcome. In case you missed it, Mariano was facing the bottom of the Angel lineup and got them 1-2-3. Truth is those errors would hurt a lot more if say, Juan Rivera hit a solo homer and the Angels lost 5-3.

Is league adjustment necessary for 2003? The NL went 137-115 in interleague play that season, 129-123 the season before, and 120-132 in 2001.

What happened in 2004 to make the AL so much better? To start with, I'd look at Schilling, Sheffield, and Vladimir joining the AL. Were there other superstars moving that year? Can't remember.

Nope. Try again. Games 1 and 4 were not handed over, CC dominated. Game 2, I'll say 50% was handed over. Izturis gets the out, or takes the safe play at first, then either: Posada gets a hit the next AB and wins it, or the game continues further into extra, where it's close to a 50/50 proposition.

As ugly as the 8th inning was last night, it changed only the score, not the outcome. In case you missed it, Mariano was facing the bottom of the Angel lineup and got them 1-2-3. Truth is those errors would hurt a lot more if say, Juan Rivera hit a solo homer and the Angels lost 5-3.
'
Games 2 and 6 are two of the four wins, so I stand comfortably by my initial statement and see no need to 'try again'

I didn't miss last night, though it sounds like you may have started watching in the eighth inning. First, one run is a whole different situation; Rivera has given up one run in an inning many a time. Most importantly, you also are assuming that the prior runs (and deficit) weren't the results of idiotic managing, terrible pitching, and the like. Not to mention weak hitting. This is simply false, as has been explained in numerous places. Put all that together and you have what most of the non-Angels fans have been alluding to.

The Angels have been a great franchise this decade; they also played a very poor series. These two things can co-exist---there is no need to deny the second in order to validate the first.

What happened in 2004 to make the AL so much better?

The Yanks' payroll jumped from $125 in 2002 to $153 in 2003 to $184 in 2004 to $208 in 2005.
To keep a little bit of pace, the Red sox jumped from $99 in 2003 to $127 in 2004 though, admittedly, the had been in the $108-110 range in 2001-2002.
To keep a little bit of pace, the Angels went from an average or lower payroll to $100 M (+40 M vs 2002) and have crept slowly up since then.

In the last few years, you see NL teams like the Cubs, Mets and Phillies jumping their payroll but also the Tigers and the White Sox. In 2009, the top 6 AL teams paid $772 M while the NL paid $716. That's not a huge discrepancy but you're still talking something on the order of 10 wins across 6 teams.

To top that off, the 4 lowest payrolls are in the NL too. The bottom 4 AL teams spend $271 M while the bottom 4 NL spend just $192, a bigger gap than the big boys. The Royals outspent 7 NL teams in 2009. The AL average is $10 M more than the NL. I suspect it was worse around 2003-4.

Most importantly, you also are assuming that the prior runs (and deficit) weren't the results of idiotic managing, terrible pitching, and the like.

3 runs in 7 innings on the road against the best offensive team in baseball is indicative of idiotic managing and terrible pitching? Who knew?

The Angels had a very good team, had laid waste to a roughly equally good team just a week ago, but they happened to run into a slightly more talented team that was playing even better. It's not a choke. Not every series has to have this story attached to it.

Exactly. It's "choking" when you lose to a worse team, not a better one.

Two very good teams played. One was a bit better than the other, made more plays, and made less mistakes, and as a result they won. That is typically what happens in the postseason.

Two very good teams played. One was a bit better than the other, made more plays, and made less mistakes, and as a result they won.

Yes. The Angels did not play a particularly great series, but playing less than perfect is not the same as choking. And Scioscia had a poor series, but that doesn't make him a bad manager.

First, one run is a whole different situation; Rivera has given up one run in an inning many a time.

And more often than not, he doesn't. Certainly not against the bottom third of the line-up. The most likely outcome was a Yankee win.

But it is hard to argue that the Angels did not cough up a lot of runs and chances.

In the first game, CC dominated, but the Yankee runs in the first inning were aided by a throwing error by the left fielder, allowing Jeter to go to third easily and Damon to second, and that radioactive pop fly; and the fourth Yankee run was aided by a throwing error on the pick-off.

In the second game, the winning run scored on an error on an ill-advised throw.

Last night, in addition to the gift runs following the sacrifice bunt errors, you had Vlad getting doubled off first.

I think the Angels, looking back on this performance, should be embarrassed. They did not get steamrolled by the Yankees, except in game 4.

The Yankees have a great lineup, very good rotation, etc. They played reasonably well in this series. The Angels, like the Twins before them, looked horrible. In no way did this or the previous series look like two top teams slugging it out. It looked like one great team pounding on a really bad one.

Given the chance, he practically always went against the percentages

But doesn't he know that playing the percentages is what smart managers do to win ballgames?

The most likely outcome was a Yankee win.

But it is hard to argue that the Angels did not cough up a lot of runs and chances.

Of course they did, but it was hardly a one way street. Take out game 4 and what was the Yankees' BA with runners in scoring position? Bring that up to normal speed and the Angels don't win a game.

I think the Angels, looking back on this performance, should be embarrassed. They did not get steamrolled by the Yankees, except in game 4.

But that's because the Angels are, despite the mistakes, a very good baseball team. They're just not as good as the Yankees.

I find the insistence that the Angels were somehow supposed to dominate the plucky little Yankees to be rather stupid, especially when there's another concurrent thread (the Prediction Thread) about how much more dominant the Yankees have been relative to every other playoff opponent the Phillies have faced the last two years.

I find the insistence that the Angels were somehow supposed to dominate the plucky little Yankees to be rather stupid

I did not say that.

I just think that when you make this many error and baserunning gaffes and mental mistakes, you should be embarrassed by your performance. Even if they would not have won, they should still be embarrassed by some of what they pulled.

So you're the stupid head. Nyaahhh.

I did not say that.

No, but you were convenient for me to use as a jumping off point, so I used you. YOU'VE BEEN USED!

How does a series with "one great team pounding on a really bad one" go 6 games?

How does a series with "one great team pounding on a really bad one" go 6 games?

Joe Girardi.

The Yankees have a great lineup, very good rotation, etc. They played reasonably well in this series. The Angels, like the Twins before them, looked horrible. In no way did this or the previous series look like two top teams slugging it out. It looked like one great team pounding on a really bad one.

Really? I must have been watching a different series. I watched an ALCS in which every game but one was close and which would have been in serious doubt had the Angels not thrown a few balls away and / or got a lucky bounce or two, like in the final game. I did not see that "one great team pounding on a real bad team". Don't even try to suggest that this Yankee team is "great" or played "great". Expensive? Sure. Great? Please...

How does a series with "one great team pounding on a really bad one" go 6 games?

Really? I must have been watching a different series.

The Yankees had a .667 winning percentage in the series. Of course a 4-2 series could still be closer than it looks. But this one wasn't. The Yankees outscored the the Angels 33-19. They out OPS'ed them 835 to 651. They made only 3 errors compared to the Angels' 8. Basically, the Yankees spanked the Angels in all aspects of the game.

Don't even try to suggest that this Yankee team is "great" or played "great".

I made sure to point out that they played reasonably well, not great. To suggest the team is great, though? They're now 110-61 on the season, after playing in, by far, the league's toughest division. If that's not a great team...

The Yankees had 8 out of 9 starters have an OPS+ north of 120, and the other guy, at 97, is at least around league average or better for a CF. (Per BBREF, CFs produced a tOPS+ of 92 and an sOPS+ of 96. I am guessing that this means that a CF with an OPS+ of 97 was above average).

They led the league in hits, home runs and runs, were tied for second in the league in defensive efficiency, and were 5th in the lead in runs allowed

So while they may not be as great as the 1998 Yankees, if they win the Series, I think they can be called great.

Follow up: 8 of the top 27 players in OPS+ in the AL were Yankees. The Red Sox, Rays and Minnesota each had 4 players in the top 27. That gives you an idea of how hard the AL East is on pitchers.