Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
I’d trade the Cubs history for the Yankees history in a heartbeat. But the future? Give me the Cubs—and it starts with 2015.
What's amazing is that it's taken this long for the Yankees' #### to really start hitting the fan,
Shouldn't that read "I wouldn't trade the Cubs history for the Yankees history"? Or am I missing something?
NY is in a box right now of their own making. They can't rebuild like other teams because doing so would risk damaging the Yankee brand. 3-4 losing seasons in a row would turn off the bandwagon riders, and Yankee Stadium would be three quarters empty most nights even if the end game was a better team going forward.
Tanking is not a viable baseball strategy. I despise this NFL/NBA mindset that you have to tear it down to build it up again. Yes you can build through the draft but there is not really a value to going completely in the tank. The draft is too big a crapshoot and the impact of that one player is too small to make it a worthwhile strategy.
I asked this in the dugout but it seems to be dead.
I agree. The 1998 Yankees are the ultimate example of this: Few truly great players, but almost every player on the roster contributed. On the flip side, the late 90s Mariners are the perfect example of a team with incredible stars that flopped because they had no depth.
I was going to comment how the Red Sox are about to have spent 800 million in five years with one playoff appearance and two losing seasons to show for it...
The Red Sox of recent vintage are the Eli Manning - Tom Coughlin Giants.
As to the 1998 Yanks, they had these great players: Jeter, Posada, BWilliams, Raines, Rivera. Okay, maybe Posada and Williams fall just short of the HOF, but they're borderline HOFers. And then you add these HOVG players: Pettitte, Knoblauch, Wells, Cone, O'Neill, Strawberry. And that's leaving out Tino Martinez, who had a good career. The idea that the 1998 Yankees didn't have great players is a myth. Hell, El Duque put up 19 WAR in just 875 innings with the team.
That it is. So would most of us rather have our team be more like the 2004-2014 Red Sox or the 1996-2005 Braves?
Signing all the top Latin kids this year was probably a good gamble by the Yankees. There's a few SS on the market this offseason like Hanley Ramirez.
(*) I also think that even had the 2004 team gone on to lose the WS I might be nearly as content, since to Red Sox fans coming back from down 0-3 to beat the Yankees WAS the World Series.
And that 2007 Superbowl was the most enjoyable sporting even I've ever watched. It was pure joy watching the Giants smack around Brady and Moss, and have them looking like they didn't want to be there , was priceless.
Not to me. I'd seen the Sox get to the World Series and lose twice before. While that comeback would always be satisfying on its own, the WS victory was still very much required.
2004 was hugely fluky. When you need consecutive Mariano Rivera Blown Saves to survive, and get them, that's pretty damn fluky.
In all seriousness, Brady and Moss looked shocked to be in a tight, physical game in the 1st half. Brady recovered and played well in the 2nd half.
I watched every pitch of the series, even as they fell down 0-3 with a 19-8 thrashing at Fenway -- throughout 1986-2003 I never, ever gave up on a series no matter how dire it looked -- and I'm not sure anything could ever come close to matching that.
Right -- only Jeter was really great in 1998. That had a ridiculous # of guys with 3-5 WAR.
That's 6 or 7 great players.
Using your definition, they still had Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Posada, Williams, and Cone. 2 clear HoFers, 2 borderline HoFers and 2 guys who are clear HofVG, and should be in the HoF discussion. Wells has >50 WAR also.
That's 6 or 7 great players, unless "great" only means HoFer to you.
Even if you start the Braves clock in 1995, I think you have to opt for the Red Sox results, although neither team can compare to the Yankees over my lifetime. Consistently underperforming in the postseason certainly dilutes all that regular season Braves success, although some seem to be able to rationalize their way through it.
There's also the issue of some of the people associated with Braves fandom.
the point is that their greatest stemmed largely from the fact that they had a lot of good players and no weaknesses at all. Almost every single player contributed. That's really, really rare
I don't think the Braves "underperformed in the postseason" by any logical analysis. 1995-2005 is 11 seasons. Since there were 8 playoff teams per year during that span then a playoff team generally had a 1 in 8 chance of winning the WS, and thus if you made the playoffs every year for 8 years your expected number of championships was 1. So they went 1 for 11 instead of 1 for 8. Big whoop.
The "underperformed" angle factors in the Braves' position entering the playoffs. A bunch of those teams were 100+ win teams who had home-field advantage in the LDS and LCS.
So the theory is that every year each team that makes the playoffs has an equal chance of winning the World Series?
I don't buy that "logic", although it certainly makes the Braves performance look better.
Seems like the Braves lost a lot of playoff series in which they were favored, and in which the format should have rewarded a team that consistently had 3 "dominant" starters and frequently the home field advantage.
Sox. By a mile.
Oh. I didn't realize that Andy deliberately left out the Braves' championship season as part of his exercise. In that case, my answer depends: if I've seen my team win the WS before, I'd rather have the championship-less 1996-2005 Braves than the 2004-2014 Red Sox. But if I haven't seen my team win the WS before then I'd take the 2004-2014 Red Sox.
And if I'm given the option of taking the championship 1995-2005 Braves then I'd choose that team.
I'm biased of course but I don't know how you'd take the 1996-2005 Braves over the 2004-2014 Red Sox. Not only do you have the three WS titles but as has been pointed out other than 2012 and maybe 2014 the Sox have been competitive every year. The Sox made the playoffs every year but one from 2004-2009. (edited for somehow remembering 2006 as a lot better than it was).
And I'm with SoSH, winning the pennant especially the way we did was awesome but the World Series title was the moment I dreamed of my whole life. To be standing in Kenmore Square, lighting up a cigar and high fiving/hugging more people in one hour than I did in the rest of my life combined was just wonderful. That they've done it twice more since including once in Fenway with me in attendance...I can't realistically imagine anything better.
So the theory is that every year each team that makes the playoffs has an equal chance of winning the World Series? I don't buy that "logic", although it certainly makes the Braves performance look better. Seems like the Braves lost a lot of playoff series in which they were favored, and in which the format should have rewarded a team that consistently had 3 "dominant" starters and frequently the home field advantage.
Jeeze. finally a chance to talk about all the young talent coming up in the Cubs pipeline since, well, ever, and all anyone talks about is the Yankees, Red Sox, Patriots, and Giants.
1998 Yankees best players by WAR:
2013 Red Sox best players by WAR:
Interesting comparison, though it shows the difference between a dynasty and a team that rather remarkably happens to have everything go right for just one magical year.
You don't have to think of the Braves as having been "chokers" to be extremely brought down** by the fact that a team that was usually considered one of the best two teams in baseball kept losing and losing and losing and losing and losing in the games that mattered the most to much of their fan base.
What does that even mean?
By your definition every team that wins multiple championships is a massive fluke, since the odds against it are pretty high.
One can just as easily say the 2004 to 2013 Red Sox were one of the great fluke teams of all time.
Teams aren't really "favored" in a postseason series by more than 53% to 47%, or at best 55% to 45%
This is exaggerated. It's more like at best 65-35.
Right. One time out of fifteen years.
I'm not the first person to say this, but discussing baseball with you is like talking to Robby the Robot.
Perhaps because you believe that major league baseball games are Tests Of Character Between Men, and I reject that silliness out of hand.
OK then. But why is all this utter randomness in any way at all interesting to you?
I enjoy watching world class baseball players compete at the highest level in order to win a short series, the stakes getting higher with each round.
If we're speaking about the playoffs, I enjoy watching world class baseball players compete at the highest level in order to win a short series, the stakes getting higher with each round.
But if its all just random, then the "competition" is really meaningless, an illusion.
No playoff team is really better than any other team. It might as well be ultra high-level rock/paper/scissors.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 1.0021 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed