They'll survive it the same way they survive any key injury: by throwing large, stinking gobs of cash at anyone who can stand upright.

by throwing large, stinking gobs of cash at anyone who can stand upright.

Firsts!!

They can survive losing Rivera, but by my count he's the fifth MIA player, and after a while it starts to add up. Add to this the sorry state of the starting rotation, and about the only silver lining is that a lot of their better minor leaguers are going to get a chance to show what they've got.

And I wonder what kind of odds we could have gotten a year ago that Derek Jeter would be the Yanks' runaway MVP at this time in 2012?

If David Robertson becomes a yeller or a preener, I may kill myself. Hopefully he learned some balance from Mo.

They'll survive it the same way they survive any key injury: by throwing large, stinking gobs of cash at anyone who can stand upright.

I can't wait to see "guy who can stand upright" on the Yankees.

I can't wait to see "guy who can stand upright" on the Yankees.

AKA: Not Eric Chavez

Losing it in the ninth *Is* worse than losing it in an earlier inning.

Losing it in the ninth *Is* worse than losing it in an earlier inning.

Pardon?

I'm 100% confident that the results of a championship season have never been determined by which inning the deciding runs of a game, or games, were scored.

If David Robertson becomes a yeller or a preener, I may kill myself. Hopefully he learned some balance from Mo.

In terms of mannerisms, Robertson seems like a worth successor to Mo. Hopefully the 2012 walk rate is sustainable, because that was really the only flaw in his physical game.

The bigger problem is losing Robertson from the 8th inning, where Rafael Soriano is being paid something like 10 times as much to be not as good as Robertson. That being said, the one thing Joe Girardi has done exceedingly well since becoming Yankees manager is build the bullpen, and I think they can weather this injury on the field.

But it makes the team less fun to watch.

I'm 100% confident you're wrong. Lose it in any earlier inning and you have time for a comeback.

Anything other than this is just stupid wordplay on Goldman's part. Seeing how (barring forfeits) it's impossible to lose the game in the first inning.

And as I said in the other thread,

2011 WPA:

Robertson
Rivera
Sabathia

....all the gnashing is moot anyway. *Who* exactly is going to stop the Yanks from grabbing the first (nevermind the second) WC?

The bigger problem is losing Robertson from the 8th inning, where Rafael Soriano is being paid something like 10 times as much to be not as good as Robertson. That being said, the one thing Joe Girardi has done exceedingly well since becoming Yankees manager is build the bullpen, and I think they can weather this injury on the field.

I would almost say they're better off making Soriano the closer. As a bonus, if he gets 40 saves the rest of the way, he may opt out.

OTTOMH, the Yanks lost Cone in 97, then no biggies until LFer types like Shemp then Sheff, then an already backing-up Wang to devastating, out for the rest of the year injuries since '96. All before the trading deadline.

Do I have my Yankee hater glasses on here, or have the NYY's been remarkably fortunate at avoiding costly boo-boo's in the Gift Basket Era, even as the one team in US pro sports best equipped by resources and rules to overcome them?

I'm 100% confident you're wrong. Lose it in any earlier inning and you have time for a comeback.

That's a silly way to look at it. You have 9 chances to score, and the opponents have 9 chances.

This is not soccer where a team goes into a shell with a 1-run lead, and need to "react" to a lead change. Teams keep trying to score with a lead.

Losing b/c you give up 4 in the first and only score 3 is exactly the same as taking a 3-0 lead into the ninth, and the closer giving up a grand-slam.

*Who* exactly is going to stop the Yanks from grabbing the first (nevermind the second) WC?

Toronto
Boston
Los Angeles

Right now it's a big honkin' mess in the American League. There is the potential for a really wild race. I think Texas and Detroit are pretty safe but after that I see five teams for three spots. Everyone has holes but I don't see the Yankees as any sort of lock. Cleveland probably belongs in there too. I'm not a believer in them but I won't be stunned if they get to an 87 win season and sneak in.

Toronto
Boston
Los Angeles

Right now it's a big honkin' mess in the American League. There is the potential for a really wild race. I think Texas and Detroit are pretty safe but after that I see five teams for three spots. Everyone has holes but I don't see the Yankees as any sort of lock. Cleveland probably belongs in there too. I'm not a believer in them but I won't be stunned if they get to an 87 win season and sneak in.

I agree with this. I also suspect that, by season's end, the consensus will be that the second wild card team (whoever that is) has no business being in any postseason funfest.

Texas and Detroit are pretty safe

I never feel that the Rangers are safe; but in a world where Mitch Moreland is out-hitting Albert Pujols, many things can happen :)

I agree with this. I also suspect that, by season's end, the consensus will be that the second wild card team (whoever that is) has no business being in any postseason funfest.

My exact position when I look at the two Boston teams who would have grabbed those WC spots in 2010 and 2011.

the consensus will be that the second wild card team (whoever that is) has no business being in any postseason funfest.

Five weeks ago I would have said that a 92 win team could wind up staying home. Right now I think 87/88 wins might be the #2 slot. LA, Boston and New York have all come out and in varying degrees laid eggs.

BDC - Life of a fan, it never looks as good as it is. #### happens but the Rangers are the best team in baseball, enjoy this, longtime Ranger fans have had this coming to them.

Losing b/c you give up 4 in the first and only score 3 is exactly the same as taking a 3-0 lead into the ninth, and the closer giving up a grand-slam.

Not if you go by likelihood of win (WPA) ... and it makes more sense to go by that.

Game context matters to play result value. That's why the Shot Heard Round the World wasn't only more dramatic than if Thomsen had hit a 3 run HR in the first; it was more valuable.

But that wasn't the argument, the argument was whether or not losing in the 8th or 9th mattered, it doesn't. One loss=one loss. If the Yankees make Robertson the closer and lose every game in the 8th inning that sucks for them, if they leave Robertson in the 8th and lose every game in the 9th, that sucks too. As a fan there is probably some marginal difference in the emotions but from a pure win/loss standpoint 1=1.

Obviously a 3 run homer in the 9th inning of a 4-2 game is more impactful to that game than a 3 run homer in the 1st inning.

Not if you go by likelihood of win (WPA) ... and it makes more sense to go by that.

Game context matters to play result value. That's why the Shot Heard Round the World wasn't only more dramatic than if Thomsen had hit a 3 run HR in the first; it was more valuable.

Why should the conditional probability matter? A game that you lose when you had a 99% conditional win-probability counts exactly the same as the one where you drop to 5% in the top of the first, and never rally. There is no reason to think scoring early hurts your ability to score or prevent runs later on. In fact, the early runs may be more valuable to winning prob., b/c they keep the other team's best RPs out of the game.

Ex-post, Thomson's HR would have been just as valuable if hit in the first. You're confusing the change in probability with the end-state. Every game ends with a 0% or 100% win prob. The value of a deciding run shouldn't vary based on timing.

You. Can't. Lose a game in the 8th.

emotionally it is crushing to lose a game after going into the 9th with a lead. The author is technically right that a loss early is the same as a late inning loss...in the standings. But when the starting lineup and starting pitcher feel like they've done their jobs and then the closer blows it, that feels worse than losing any other way.

Obviously a 3 run homer in the 9th inning of a 4-2 game is more impactful to that game than a 3 run homer in the 1st inning.

How? If the other team is only going to score 2, then those first 3 runs have the same impact whenever they are scored.

There's virtually no link between offense and defense in baseball. It's not like "two-way" sports where score has a big impact on strategy.

To the extent that scoring does impact run prevention, or further run scoring, it would seem that early runs have a positive impact on your own run prevention, and a positive impact on your own scoring, because teams use better pitchers with a lead than when behind.

You. Can't. Lose a game in the 8th.

Yes. You. Can.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS201204210.shtml

emotionally it is crushing to lose a game after going into the 9th with a lead.

True. But, I think studies have shown no "hangover" effect from these losses. The loss feels bad, but teams don't go on to lose other games b/c of it.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS201204210.shtml

Really? Cause I see a ninth inning was played. They didn't stop playing in the eighth.

You guys are arguing two different things. The people arguing that you can lose a game in the early innings are fixing the total runs scored on offense, and therefore noting (correctly) that you can give up the losing runs at any point in the game.

You're not fixing the runs scored, and arguing (also correctly) that if you still have chances to score*, you can't technically lose a game earlier than the ninth/extras.**

* The problem with this angle is you can't really lose, from a pitching perspective, any game on the road.

** To be 100 percent accurate, you can lose a game any time in the fifth or later if the rains come.

Really? Cause I see a ninth inning was played. They didn't stop playing in the eighth.

Look at the win probability graph, they might as well have.

It's ridiculous to say the game wasn't lost until the 9th. That's saying it's the offense's fault they didn't put up a 6 spot in the 9th, rather than the bullpen's fault for giving up 14 runs in the 7th and 8th.

The people arguing that you can lose a game in the early innings are fixing the total runs scored on offense

But why wouldn't you fix the runs scored in an ex post analysis?

Are people saying that if the team hadn't had the lead, they would have scored more?

Why should the conditional probability matter?

Because seasons are played in 162 individual units, not by aggregation.

A game that you lose when you had a 99% conditional win-probability counts exactly the same as the one where you drop to 5% in the top of the first, and never rally.

Sure, but why would you ignore the various game states along the way -- particularly when managers don't? Managers put in the 12th man on the staff when they're down 10 in the 9th; they put in one of the best guys on the staff when they're up 1 in the ninth. The game states provide valuable information.

Ex-post, Thomson's HR would have been just as valuable if hit in the first.

I don't see that. I see change in win probability as a really good measure of "value" that should be deployed even more than it is. Hitters hit and pitchers pitch in particular game state contexts. Maybe that's wrong, but I don't see how. Perhaps there's a better term than "value" to describe what the changes in game states really are.

I feel bad for every future Yankees closer. No matter how good they are, they are never going to be as good as Mariano. Especially in the eyes of the fans.

Sure, but why would you ignore the various game states along the way -- particularly when managers don't? Managers put in the 12th man on the staff when they're down 10 in the 9th; they put in one of the best guys on the staff when they're up 1 in the ninth. The game states provide valuable information.

But, those manager actions mean that early scoring leads to more expected scoring for your team, b/c you face crappy RPs. That would make the early runs more valuable, not less. Likewise, early runs let you leverage your best RPs, and reduce expected runs allowed.

If a team could know with certainty how many runs they would score in a given game, that would be a huge advantage. i.e. if one team batted 9 times, then the other batted 9 times, you'd always want to bat first. It allows you to optimize pitcher usage, and deply defensive specialists.

SOSH is right, when it gets to this point...it's a bunch of statistic terms and pedantic, nitpicking definitions (On my part greatly). I withdraw from the conversation without any animosity whatsover.

But, those manager actions mean that early scoring leads to more expected scoring for your team, b/c you face crappy RPs. That would make the early runs more valuable, not less. Likewise, early runs let you leverage your best RPs, and reduce expected runs allowed.

Agreed, but all that should be captured by the game state inputs into WPA.

I withdraw from the conversation without any animosity whatsover.

Why should there be animosity? Adults should be able to debate anything about baseball without taking it personally.

Why should there be animosity? Adults should be able to debate anything about baseball without taking it personally.

Because we're humans. And an inability to get the other person to understand what you're trying to communicate leads to frustration, and frustration leads to animosity. Animosity leads to anger and to the Dark Side that leads you.

So drop your cable and get DirectTV

[32] I feel bad for every future Yankees closer. No matter how good they are, they are never going to be as good as Mariano. Especially in the eyes of the fans.

Do you feel sorry for every Yankees catcher, first baseman and right fielder since Berra, Gehrig and Ruth? I'll resist the temptation to add every future shortstop. :)

Ex-post, Thomson's HR would have been just as valuable if hit in the first.

Sure, if everything else in the game had transpired exactly as it did otherwise---which of course would've literally been impossible. When Thomson hit that walkoff homer, the Dodgers had a zero percent chance of winning. Even coolstandings.com could've predicted that.

But if Thomson had hit a three run homer in the first, the entire nature of the game would've been transformed, and there's absolutely no way of predicting what might have happened. Newcombe might've been rattled to the point where he made an early exit, and the Giants might have won in a laugher. Or the early deficit might've awakened the Dodgers out of whatever complacency they'd carried over from their 10-0 win the day before, and they would've pounced on Maglie early while Newcombe settled down. Both of these scenarios

But in any event the Dodgers' chances would've still been greater than zero percent. None of these "first inning homers are just as valuable as ninth inning walkoffs" statements take this into account. They simply ignore it and go on with their absolutely irrelevant hypothetical exercises. It's as if you said that a presidential assassination is no different on the first day or the last day of his four year term, as if everything in between wouldn't have been affected.

Why should there be animosity? Adults should be able to debate anything about baseball without taking it personally.

And yet, you have me on ignore...

Goldman: Mariano Rivera: Why the Yankees Will Survive His Loss

I was going to say "because he only pitches 60 innings a year," but I see Goldman covered that.

I'm 100% confident you're wrong. Lose it in any earlier inning and you have time for a comeback.

Huh? The premise is that you've already lost it.

I can't wait to see "guy who can stand upright" on the Yankees.

Yup, Jeremy Giambi is available.

Do you feel sorry for every Yankees catcher, first baseman and right fielder since Berra, Gehrig and Ruth? I'll resist the temptation to add every future shortstop. :)

I'd personally feel much, much sorrier for the next Yankees' shortstop, since you'd have to be in your 60's to remember even Berra at his peak, and you'd have to be Roger Angell's age to remember the Babe. And if Robertson can close as effectively as he's been able to hold, I don't think too many Yankee fans are going to be on his case too much.

And yet, you have me on ignore...

Not currently, no.

And when you were, it was because of personal insults, not your opinion on any issue. Certainly not an opinion on baseball.

I try very hard not to engage in personal attacks, and only debate things on their merits. But, I won't stand for being insulted (I don't know how Ray stands it here sometimes). I can either disengage from the person, or lash out myself. I don't want to lash out, so I may leave a thread or ignore a person.

I ignored you precisely to avoid inreased animosity.

emotionally it is crushing to lose a game after going into the 9th with a lead. The author is technically right that a loss early is the same as a late inning loss...in the standings. But when the starting lineup and starting pitcher feel like they've done their jobs and then the closer blows it, that feels worse than losing any other way.

There's no evidence that major league baseball players are affected this way.

The computer simulations win and lose games in just the same way.

That clip of Girardi bumping into Rivera's leg is amazing.

Not currently, no.

And when you were, it was because of personal insults, not your opinion on any issue. Certainly not an opinion on baseball.

I made one throw away joke about the phrase "NRA member in good standing", in the same thread where people were flat out calling you a bigot. You turned around, called me an ass, and put me on ignore...

Personally, I just find that hilarious, YMMV.

Oh, and Snapper....it's kind of odd to use a game of a team with a 6 run lead in the eighth as 'proof a game can be lost in the eighth, because Win Probability says the game was all but over'...when in the same game the other team had an 8 run lead going into the 7th.

I'm jus sayin.

I made one throw away joke about the phrase "NRA member in good standing", in the same thread where people were flat out calling you a bigot. You turned around, called me an ass, and put me on ignore...

Personally, I just find that hilarious, YMMV.

I'm fairly certain that wasn't the line that set me off, but let's just drop it. No point in dredging up unpleasantness.