Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Washington Post: Tom Boswell: Yankees Are Monuments To Baseball Success
(www.washingtonpost.com)
posted on May 21, 2013 at 02:30 AM by The Yankee Clapper to aging, great baseball players, injuries, pennant race, veteran leadership, yankees
|
15 comment(s)
Boz pays homage to the gritty, gutsy, scrappy, first place 2013 underdog Yankees:
Read More...Perhaps for the first time in their history, the Yankees now epitomize exactly the kind of team that always used to try to beat them: a group of inspired-by-adversity, too-old-or-too-young, one-last-chance players who band together to prove that baseball is a team game, not just an aggregation of talent and fat contracts.
Put a few all-star seasons, such as Cano’s 31 RBI, Kiroda’s 1.99 ERA and Rivera’s 16 ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
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 2 of 3 pages
< 1 2 3 >I am lucky I don't live there, because I love what they are doing as a team (though I wish they'd let the O's win one, and if Buck doesn't start Johnson next time around, my head might explode), but I literally could not stand having to listen to the drums every night.
Well, this is one place we differ. If I were Texas, I wouldn't be in "coasting mode" now, since getting passed by Oakland puts them in the play-in game. Under the old system, it would put them in a five-game without HCA instead of with it. Now, if it happens, it puts them one bad game from going home. I think that is a pretty big deal. YMMV.
I think that even with a second wild-card, it would be difficult today for a team to finish with a losing record and qualify for the playoffs. You'd have to have a situation where one league was substantially stronger than the other in interleague play, and a great deal of imbalance existed within the weaker league (think of the 1954 AL, where the Indians won 111 games and the Yankees won 103).
And I'd say you're understating, if not ignoring, how much these other races are weakened. The 1993 NL West was a mesmerizing race in large part because there was only one prize. The winner was one series away from the World Series. The loser was done for the year. The race is better, the division title more valuable, when there is no fallback position.
From the POV of the runner-up, the single wildcard does make for a more appealing fallback position than the new play-in game. Undoubtedly. But that only applies to the team that finishes fourth. To the team that finishes fifth, the play-in game is equally more appealing than the 2011 alternative.
Unless your a fan of a wide-open playoff system like those used in the NBA or NHL, you have to recognize that whatever plus there is to the new WC system, there's pretty much an equal corresponding minus, and not just between the divisions. One year the race for the second WC might be the most competitive (2012 NL), another year the second WC would remove an interesting race and leave nothing in its place (2011 NL and AL).
On top of that, the one constant, and a permanent negative to someone (like you) who believes the fewer playoff entries the better, is that an even less-deserving team is let into the postseason scrum every year.**
* As well as other little ones of varying degrees of likelihood.
**While, I believe, getting us closer to the six-team per league postseason. That, however, is merely speculative.
There is a plus and minus, but I don't think it's equal. I think the extra wild card with the one game playoff has a few more pluses than the previous system. Of course it's a balancing act to be sure, in that you want to keep enough teams in the post season that half of the fans are paying attention to the end of the season or post season, while not ensuring that a non-ridiculous number of teams go to the dance.
Cabrera led the AL in OBP in both 2010 and 2011. He has a decent shot this year of leading the league for the second time in AVG, RBI and/or total bases. And as you acknowledged, it's a lot harder to get black ink now that there are 14/16 teams in each league instead of 7. He's already completed a career Triple Crown.
Other arguments for "Miguel Cabrera is a HOFer right now":
• He's made 7 All-Star teams in 10 years, despite being in unpopular voting markets.
• He has received MVP votes in every single year of his career, including his 87-game rookie season. He has five Top 5 finishes (in nine years) and will likely get another one this year. He has 2.41 "career MVP shares" despite not yet winning one.
• If his career literally ended today, his OPS+ would be 30th all time, ahead of Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Reggie Jackson, Chuck Klein, George Brett, etc. His career OPS+ is 151, but it is still ascendant -- he's been significantly above that the last three years.
• Other than the Black Ink test (which is not so applicable to today's players, I think), he is already well above the average/likely HOF benchmarks for Gray Ink and HOF Monitor.
• He has generally been on winning teams, and has usually been the best (position) player on those teams. Assuming the Tigers win a few more games this year, his teams will have been .500 or better 7 out of 10 years. That's not impressive if you play in New York, but it means something in Florida and Detroit, where winning seasons (without Cabrera) haven't been too common over the past 20 years.
• Postseason: His teams have won four of five of their playoff series and he has a .282/.383/.573 line in the postseason.
• Team player: Despite being the best first baseman in the AL, he enthusiastically moved to third base mid-career to allow the Tigers to add Prince Fielder. He became a pretty adequate third baseman, which presumably involved hard work (most people were convinced he would be dreadful).
• Durable and reliable. His fewest games in a year (not counting this year or his midseason call-up rookie year) was 150. He's played at least 157 games seven times, and probably will do it again this year. His WORST year offensively (not counting his rookie year) by oWAR/OPS+ was 2008 (3.3/130), and he led the league in HR and total bases that year.
I realize that if it all ended today it would have been a very short career, and it's tough to get into the HOF with just 10 years of baseball, no matter how good they are. But I think Cabrera's overall game, the context of his performance, and his reputation push him above short-career candidates like Albert Belle and, say, Juan Gonzalez (through 2001). The only thing you can criticize about his baseball performance is his defense, which HOF voters usually ignore for 1B/corner OF types.
Albert Belle (finished after 12 years with similar stats to Cabrera's now) is a pretty good comp, but Cabrera's WAR and OPS+ are better, he made more All-Star teams, he performed better in the postseason, he won a batting title (Belle never did), he had slightly more MVP success — and everyone hated Belle. But if the HOF voters had been neutral (or just slightly negative) toward Belle, his HOF candidacy might still be alive and progressing.
Sure, and that kind of scenario ended permanently in 1994. Basically any time there are two really good teams in the same league, one will be the Wild Card. So, I think if you miss those types of races, you should actually be in favor of the second WC, since it creates a greater cost to being the team that ends up in 2nd place.
I don't think they are 100% equal, but I have noted the embedded plus/minus thing repeatedly.
When this thing started being talked about last September, I said many times that I don't like the Wild Card. I grew up on the divisional system; I liked it, it seemed "normal" to me and I wish it were still around. That acknowledged, I think that there is a very good and painfully obvious case to be made that the longer playoff season and the extra playoff teams position baseball better as a commercial product in the 24/7/365 digital media era than having two eight-team divisions with one winner each in the NL and two seven-team divisions in the AL would. It keeps the big web sites hopping, and it pulls in casual fans. Guys like me and you will pay attention anyway; Selig has us. The set-up now seems to work for the voracious media beast and fans who are not like us.
So, in that context, this dual WC set-up is IMO a better way to go than what MLB had.
As to six teams being the future...probably. I expect that the future set-up will be 32 teams, eight short-stack divisions, and two WCs per league, with a "Wild Card Round" and a layoff for the two best records in each league--IOW, the NFL system as applied to MLB.
That's only if you focus on one specific element of the equation (which pretty much is my objection in a nutshell). Yes, there is now a greater penalty for this particular race than there would have been last year. But a) having to win one extra game to get back on equal footing is nowhere close to being the same as being out of the playoffs entirely, and b) it only deals with the race between a division champion and the best runner-up, ignoring the fact that there were already good races between another division champ and a lesser runner-up that allowed this winner-take-all dynamic to play out. Now, in a typical year, we will only have one division per league where there is the potential for a good, old-fashioned, win-you're-in, lose-you're-out, race. The best kind of race.
That's an entirely different argument. It's obviously a legitimate one, but it's fundamentally different than the one we're having here between fans who aren't just like us, but are us. That of what we like, not what we think is in MLB's best interests.
On Sept. 15, 2011, the Cardinals were a game and a half ahead of the Giants. The Rays were a whole game ahead of the Angels (who were only three behind the Rangers). None of these teams would have been setting their rotations just yet.
Actually it's hidden in the Valley of the Sun.
Say thank you to Arizona for Jarrod Parker and Brett Anderson
You are doing exactly the same thing you are complaining that I am doing: "focusing on one specific element of the equation." The team in question can just as easily lose that game--and their season is over. You act like that's meaningless as long as you're in the postseason; it isn't. Look at TVE up there in post #2.
It is more a question of not thinking it is that big of a deal than ignoring it. Those types of races, like the current Detroit/Chicago race, usually have involved a couple of team that are going to win 86-90 games. For the most part, up around 91-94 wins, teams have been in "dual races", with both WC and divisional considerations. What the 2nd WC does is put more pressure on really good teams to actually win their divisions. Under the old system, Texas only being two up on Oakland would not be that big of a deal. But I think it is now. The trade-off is that one of Baltimore and New York has a parachute--the second WC. Your position seems to be that being in the play-in game is no biggie; all you have to do is win one and you are pretty much where you would have been. My position is that no team wants to have a real shot at postseason riding on a play-in, unless they have come back from ten games down in two weeks or something and are just happy to be there. I think any fan or manager would vastly prefer his team to take its shot in a best-of-five-or-seven situation.
Heh, this JUST HAPPENED in a (fictional) OOTP league I've been doing. Mainly because my league has a balanced schedule. I think that's one of the main reasons you won't see a Balanced Schedule in MLB. Greatly increases the chance of something like that happening.
Since you broughf up McCovey:
McCovey, ages 25-34, 5402 PA, 45 WAR, 320 HR, 161 OPS+
Seriously, you're gonna pull out his placement on the career OPS+ list for a guy with only 6400 PA?
I already gave you Giambi, Delgado, Vlad and Nomar. You want some other recent Cabrera-like peaks? Edgar, Thome, Manny, Abreu, Helton, Piazza, Walker and, if you want to ignore defense, Sheffield, most of them in at least one season fewer PA. You gave us Belle and we can add Sosa and Berkman and Edmonds and Palmeiro. And my personal favorite -- Teixeira, 23-32 (his career), has 45 WAR in 6543 PA. I'm not even touching Griffey and Bonds and ARod and Bagwell and Thomas.
Look, you never know, the BBWAA does strange things. But there are really only two guys like this that they've ever inducted -- Kiner and Greenberg. Kiner led the league in HR 7 times and it took him about 10 ballots (the process was pretty weird in those days). Greenberg has 2 MVPs, 4 HR title, 4 RBI titles, better numbers in the same PA than Cabrera and war credit and he got in on his 8th (real) ballot.
If Cabrera were to leave the game in a way that draws sympathy (a la Puckett) and voters filled in the rest of his career, he'd have a shot now. And, sure, he'd do better than Belle did, maybe even better than Walker is doing. Maybe after 10 years or so some strange Jim Rice magic would strike the voters.
But, great hitter though he is, he hasn't earned the HoF yet. He hasn't stood out from the crowd because it's been a damned competitive crowd these last 20+ years. That's hardly an insult to the man -- as I said, anything resembling a normal decline and he'll cruise in. Of course with anything resembling a normal decline he'll be sitting there with at least 550 HR and 1700 RBI and (I dunno) a 140 OPS+, 65 WAR and 10-11,000 PA. To get there, all he needs is Ken Griffey's age 30-40 seasons.* But if he gets hurt and turns into Nomar 30+ (5 WAR) then he's not going to make it.
* Remember, Griffey remained a very good hitter through age 35, he just couldn't stay healthy.
Speaking as a Jays fan that would be an awesome season I'd remember fondly for a long, long time.
Rk Player OPS+ PA From To Age1 Mickey Mantle 176 7199 1951 1962 19-30
2 Frank Thomas 174 5502 1990 1998 22-30
3 Albert Pujols 172 6782 2001 2010 21-30
4 Barry Bonds 159 6038 1986 1995 21-30
5 Willie Mays 158 5960 1951 1961 20-30
6 Hank Aaron 157 7216 1954 1964 20-30
7 Frank Robinson 154 7088 1956 1966 20-30
8 Eddie Mathews 152 7124 1952 1962 20-30
9 Miguel Cabrera 151 6399 2003 2012 20-29
10 Reggie Jackson 150 5616 1967 1976 21-30
11 Ken Griffey 148 7319 1989 2000 19-30
12 Alex Rodriguez 145 7774 1994 2006 18-30
13 Duke Snider 144 6086 1947 1957 20-30
14 Eddie Murray 143 6415 1977 1986 21-30
15 Carl Yastrzems 143 6676 1961 1970 21-30
16 George Brett 141 5863 1973 1983 20-30
17 Gary Sheffield 140 5548 1988 1999 19-30
At least rated this way, every player who's done what Cabrera did in his 20s has gone on to be a deserving Hall of Famer. The only person on the list who may not be inducted (other than Cabrera) is Gary Sheffield, who only just barely crosses the PA/OPS+ thresholds. Plus the whole steroids thing.
I don't see Cabrera as being a deserving HoFer today, but it looks like Cabrera is about as sure a bet to make the Hall as anyone his age in the game.
Only through the application of careful editing.
I don't think it's meaningless. In fact, I've acknowledged its meaningfulness. I'm merely noting that being in the playoffs is much differnet than not being in them at all.
And I did look at TVE up there. In fact, it (and shoe's follow-up) are what prompted my comment.
but for the way it rewards winning the division. I know as a Yankee fan that I don't want any part of the one-game play-in.
This wild card system is not enhancing the race HIS YANKEES are in. If this system were in place last year, HIS YANKEES would be looking at winning the AL East or going home. That would surely reward winning that division to a greater extent than the dual WC does. So no, I don't see how this is a case of simply getting it and ignoring it.
If you treasure the idea of rewarding the division championship where the first runner-up rests, and you genuinely don't care that it potentionally lessens another division championship, fine. I just get annoyed when at the idea the dual WC system does more than that, because there's absolutely no logic to that position.
One way of looking at it is that a race like the AL Central, between two 87-win clubs, is indeed hurt by the second wild card. However, the second wild card produces playoff chases between 87-win clubs almost every year, such as the chase for the second WC in the NL this year. The effect of the second wild card on playoff races between most unimpressive clubs is mostly a wash. The new races are going to mostly lesser affairs (probably averaging 86-win teams competing instead of 89-win teams), so that's a legitimate loss under the new set-up. But I don't think it's a terribly large one. And on top of that, the second wild card produces more playoff races between better clubs, as 92-96 win teams try to win their division and stay out of the play-in game. I think the plusses outweigh the minuses.
Rk Player OPS+ PA From To Age1 Mickey Mantle 175 6697 1951 1961 19-29
2 Albert Pujols 172 6082 2001 2009 21-29
3 Hank Aaron 158 6582 1954 1963 20-29
4 Willie Mays 158 5301 1951 1960 20-29
5 Barry Bonds 157 5403 1986 1994 21-29
6 Eddie Mathews 154 6481 1952 1961 20-29
7 Miguel Cabrera 151 6399 2003 2012 20-29
8 Reggie Jackson 150 5058 1967 1975 21-29
9 Frank Robinson 150 6408 1956 1965 20-29
10 Ken Griffey 149 6688 1989 1999 19-29
11 Alex Rodriguez 146 7100 1994 2005 18-29
12 Darryl Strawberry 144 5137 1983 1991 21-29
13 Eddie Murray 144 5837 1977 1985 21-29
14 Duke Snider 144 5494 1947 1956 20-29
15 Orlando Cepeda 142 5684 1958 1967 20-29
And that's a perfectly legigtimate position. One I don't happen to share, but OK. But I don't see how you can say that kind of weighing was being done by TVe and Shoe, which is what No. 9 was posted in response to and, for some reason, prompted this little go-around.
It's fair to point out that these 50-word posts were not fulsome descriptions of all the trade-offs involved, but treating them as evidence of people "genuinely not caring" about tradeoffs is wrong, and it produces a lesser discussion than if you engaged with people dealing with hte issues in more depth.
To me, this "real cost" is trivial compared to the simple fact that they potentially get another shot at the Nationals, a team that has already proven itself to be superior. YMMV. As for 52, all I meant by not "exactly in coasting mode" is that IMO Texas isn't quite assured of the first WC yet. Despite last night's results, they seem likely to be in that position in another week or so. Again, YMMV.
Which just proves how ridiculous it is to have divisions but play a balanced schedule. At least this problem has been solved.
And that race will necessarily be in the weakest division in each league, making it necessarily less compelling (except to fans of the two mediocrities involved, of course).
Yes, those teams only would have stopped worrying with two or three or four games to go, rather than with two weeks to go. But they still would have stopped worrying before the games that turned out to be the most compelling of the season had been played.
If it's the Yankees losing a couple of coin-flip games in a row, we're talking about the New York media, so you can definitely put me down for "smear the character of the team that loses one game, and think that explains everything."
You can't just shut 'em down and then start 'em back up again.
That's the point you've made. It is not the point others, like TVE, have made. I'm with SoSH here -- lots of people apply a blanket "makes division races better" stamp of approval to the second WC without really thinking it through.
Not to pick on him or you, but I think this is overly generous to TVE's post. I don't see how you can not read it as either not realizing or not caring that the Yankees would be in a fight for their lives division race without the second WC. And completely glossing over SoSH's point that "win the division or have to play a win-or-go-home game" is less of a predicament than "win the division or go home."
They both said they like the new WC because it rewards/puts more value on winning the division. I pointed out in 9 that it actually rewards one division/weakens another. If this is understood by everyone, that post should have died on the vine, perhaps with an unstated, "There goes ol' dumbfuck SoSH, pointing out the obvious again."*
* And yes, I'm fully aware that others were thinking just that.
Since 1998, the non division winner with the second best record has averaged a 89-73 record.
I want to emphasize #67. As much as I would feel that my team blowing a ten-game divisional lead only to be given a Wild Card spot is a "kissing my sister" moment, not all fanbases are the same, and not all teams should be held to the same expectations. Although my dream scenario is still one in which if you beat the other teams in your division over 162, you earn the right not to face them in the playoffs; I understand that this thinking can possibly strand ten or twenty fanbases in the non-compete wilderness for twenty years at a time.
I acknowledge the complexity of this issue. There are good and bad points to each system, including the ones I favor. But there has to be a system.
I noted your post, and wanted to ponder it some more and see what others had to say. It's a valid counterpoint. In the end I think we will have to see how it all plays out. I think this will reduce the number of wild card teams that win the world series, but thats just a gues, and it certainly makes it harder for the "first" wild card team than it was before.
The bottom line is if you don't win your division, but make it to the WC play in game, you have what is the equivalent to a coin flip to get to play in the Divisional series. These teams are motivated to win their division, but of course will still play hard to at least make it to the play in game if they can.
It's actually none of the above. I recognize that there are lots and lots of reasons why the Wild Card is here to stay. And I'm too realistic about this to plug my ears and continue to argue against it.
I've seen zany proposals about a single Wild Card/messing with HFA in the first round of the playoffs. And even fanciful ones about forcing the WC entrant to win more games to win a series than a division winner. I don't think we should or could see changes like that.
I've never thought that this is an unassailably, 100% great system. It isn't. But what makes baseball unique for me and extra-compelling is the divisional race. Half games, scoreboard watching, two weeks to make up a deficit. That doesn't exist elsewhere, and trying to preserve that should be THE primary focus of any systemic monkeying with the game.
But, the zero WC system is never, ever coming back. 4 playoff teams is just too few for a 30 team league. It eliminates interest in 20 markets before Labor Day, and is hugely sub-optimal in revenue generation.
The only reasonable argument is what is the better WC system. I like the 2 WCs better. I like the chaotic scrum for divisions/WC spots. I want 12-15 teams to be in it going into the last week of the season. I love the idea of play-in games every year.
I honestly don't care about "rewarding performance". If you win 120 games, and can't beat an 85 win team in 5 or 7 games, too bad, so sad. Did anyone complain when the 116 win Mariners lost to a 95 win Yankee team? That's the nature of a playoff system.
What do you mean? Everybody complained about that. We didn't get to see the greatest team of our era play in the World Series.
Obviously, they weren't that great. The Yankees dispatched them with relative ease. They certainly weren't better than the '98 Yankees.
Sounds about right to me. Like I said, give him Griffey's age 30-40 (about 18 WAR, 4600 PA, 230 HR, 650-700 RBI) and he'll clearly get voted in. About all that requires is being as healthy as Griffey.
Of course Trout will pass him in career WAR after his age 25 season. :-)
I will say Cabrera seems on the cusp of "elite great hitter" or whatever category I put Pujols into. Guys who were well over 150 through age 30/31 aged very well as hitters (not necessarily in ability to stay on the field) with the worst-case scenario being Frank Thomas if I recall correctly. But it was around 150 where that was more of a 50/50 proposition but it might have been more like 140-145.
Cabrera's an interesting comp. He's not the hitter Cabrera is and his PA total is light because he missed almost all of his age 27 season (and wasn't too good at 28 then crushed at 29). Still, if you equalize the PAs, Cepeda would be equal in WAR. From ages 30-36 he added only 10 WAR, but 111 HR and 429 RBI. With more power in this era, that might be the equivalent of 130-150 HR and say 475 RBI. That would put Cabrera around 450 HR and nearly 1600 RBI and 9500 PA. Aronnd a 140 OPS+. That's a very tough call -- Fred McGriff with better rate stats but fewer HR or Edgar with worse rate stats but more HR, RBI and PA.
So if he's Nomar (or Strawberry if you want a traditional slugger) from age 30 on, he won't go in. If he's Griffey from age 30 on, he goes in easily I'd think. If he's Cepeda from age 30 on, he's borderline but I think deserving. Obviously if he's Frank Robinson from age 30 on, we can punch his ticket pretty soon.
For single seasons, From 1961 to 2012, (requiring onbase_plus_slugging_plus>=140, RBI>=100, HR>=30 and batting_avg>=.300), sorted by greatest Seasons matching criteria
(Note no age qualifier.....Cabrera could move up to 3 on this list and maybe 2nd.
Rk Yrs From To Age1 Albert Pujols 10 2001 2010 21-30 Ind. Seasons
2 Manny Ramirez 10 1995 2008 23-36 Ind. Seasons
3 Barry Bonds 9 1990 2004 25-39 Ind. Seasons
4 Alex Rodriguez 7 1996 2008 20-32 Ind. Seasons
5 Frank Thomas 7 1991 2000 23-32 Ind. Seasons
6 Miguel Cabrera 6 2005 2012 22-29 Ind. Seasons
7 Vladimir Guerrero 6 1998 2005 23-30 Ind. Seasons
8 Jeff Bagwell 5 1994 2000 26-32 Ind. Seasons
9 Mike Piazza 5 1993 2000 24-31 Ind. Seasons
10 Juan Gonzalez 5 1993 2001 23-31 Ind. Seasons
11 Gary Sheffield 5 1992 2003 23-34 Ind. Seasons
12 Hank Aaron 5 1961 1971 27-37 Ind. Seasons
13 Todd Helton 4 2000 2003 26-29 Ind. Seasons
14 Jason Giambi 4 1999 2002 28-31 Ind. Seasons
15 Chipper Jones 4 1998 2001 26-29 Ind. Seasons
16 Albert Belle 4 1994 1998 27-31 Ind. Seasons
17 Jim Rice 4 1977 1983 24-30 Ind. Seasons
18 Frank Robinson 4 1961 1969 25-33 Ind. Seasons
19 Willie Mays 4 1961 1965 30-34 Ind. Seasons
20 Ryan Braun 3 2009 2012 25-28 Ind. Seasons
21 Mark Teixeira 3 2005 2008 25-28 Ind. Seasons
22 David Ortiz 3 2004 2007 28-31 Ind. Seasons
23 Lance Berkman 3 2001 2006 25-30 Ind. Seasons
24 Carlos Delgado 3 2000 2005 28-33 Ind. Seasons
25 Sammy Sosa 3 1998 2001 29-32 Ind. Seasons
Rk Yrs From To Age
26 Larry Walker 3 1997 2001 30-34 Ind. Seasons
27 Mo Vaughn 3 1995 1998 27-30 Ind. Seasons
28 Ken Griffey 3 1993 1997 23-27 Ind. Seasons
29 Don Mattingly 3 1985 1987 24-26 Ind. Seasons
30 Billy Williams 3 1965 1972 27-34 Ind. Seasons
The 2001 Mariners, though, look like the greatest fluke team ever. There were a bunch of career years, the bench players were above league average, the starting rotation stayed healthy. If you look at the actual roster, you see a solid division winner, but nothing close to a truly great club. And the Mariners indeed were merely very good in 2000 and 2002. Doing it more than once is the hallmark of actual greatness.
As such, I don't think it's terribly surprising they lost in the ALCS to the Yankees, an about equivalently excellent team by talent.
The 2001 Mariners, though, look like the greatest fluke team ever. There were a bunch of career years, the bench players were above league average, the starting rotation stayed healthy. If you look at the actual roster, you see a solid division winner, but nothing close to a truly great club. And the Mariners indeed were merely very good in 2000 and 2002. Doing it more than once is the hallmark of actual greatness.
I agree with the second part; the Mariners were a fluke, the players weren't that good. That's why it's not surprising they lost in the ALCS. They turned back into a pumpkin just a little bit early.
I disagree that the 2002-04 Yankees were great teams. They had defensive liabilities at every position, and a manager and pitching coach that had reached their sell-by dates. The handling of the bullpen was generally atrocious.
Only 110 win teams don't have flaws.
Only 110 win teams don't have flaws.
Fair enough. In that context I'd say great regular season teams, but poorly designed for the playoffs.
Going into the final weekend, the Yankees led the Red Sox by 1 game, and the Red Sox were tied with the Indians for the WC. At that point, neither team was assured of a playoff spot. On Friday, the Red Sox and the Indians lost. So going into Saturday's game, it was still possible for the loser of the Red Sox/Yankee race to miss the playoffs. On Saturday, the Yankees won and the Indians lost. So, going into Sunday, the Yankees were assured of a spot, but not the Red Sox. One team not having to take game 162 seriously is hardly tragedy.
I'm not sure that Yankee offense was even the best between 2002 and 2004:
Fangraphs 2002-2004
BRAA + Positional Adjustment:
Cardinals 380
Yankees 374
Red Sox 353
Giants 353
Braves 295
They were the worst fielding team of the period -175 Runs by Fangraphs, about 11-12 Wins worse per year than the Mariners who were the best. The starting pitching was very good, but not clearly better or worse than the Red Sox, Diamondbacks, Athletics or Cubs. The bullpen was also good, but clearly worse than the Twins', and not much better or worse than the Angels, Dodgers or Rangers. They were 2nd in total WAR during that period behind the Red Sox, and not much different from the Giants or Braves. They were not clearly the best team of the period and I don't see why they would be "easily the best team" in 2012. They might be, but you'd have to do some serious timelining and league adjusting to get there.
I believe he was thinking about 2007.
The Yanks have 1 home game vs. the Rays, 3 home games against the A's, and 3 road games in Minny.
The O's have 1 more game in Oakland, 3 in Seattle, and 3 in Tropicana.
The Rays have 1 more at Yankee Stadium, 4 in whatever they call Comiskey these days, and then a season ending 3 game catfight at Tropicana with the Orioles. At 4 games back, I'd say that they'd better damn well win today.
And while I was going to say that Oakland seems to be cruising towards the 1st WC spot, look at what they've got in store after today's finale against the O's: 3 in Comerica, 3 in Yankee Stadium, 4 in Arlington, 3 at home against Seattle, and then 3 more against the Rangers. They've now got 3 up over the Orioles and 6 up over the Rays, and by the end of the season they might be very grateful that they had it.
I hate these arguments. Unless he gets hit by a bus in the next 5 years, his ending career OPS+ is very likely to be in the 140 range.
If Miggy repeats his career best performance from last year over the next two years, he'll have as many PAs as McGwire, with about 65 fWAR to Big Mac's 70 fWAR. He's only had 2 seasons with a higher OPS+ than Big Mac's career OPS+, and this year is actually shy of it. 140 OPS+ from a first baseman is not special at all. Even 151 isn't ringing the bell near the top, he'd be about 13th among big slow footed first basemen (who almost all had decline years) in OPS+ if his career ended today.
Miggy is around 45th in lifetime WAR among first baseman now. He doesn't have a special peak that makes a short career HOF worthy. Greenberg, Brouthers, Dick Allen, Jonny Mize , McGwire, even Pujols, were all substantially peakier.
Jonny Mize put up a 170 OPS+ in his first 5300 PAs, but he also missed 3 peak years to WWII, ages 30-32. His OPS+ was 161 in 1942, he came back in 1946 and put up a 186. That's a peak.
What he has is amazing consistency and the potential for a long career with big counting stats. No, he's not a HOF now. Yes, he's one in 10 years barring unexpected collapse.
Obviously 5 games is the only measure of greatness, not putting up a 117 OPS+ and 117 ERA+ while leading the league in defensive efficiency (.727) over a 162 game season.
After all the 98 Yankees only put up a 116 OPS+ & 116 ERA+ and led the league in defensive efficiency (only .708 though), but also ran good in short series and had the STARS, and all wearing pinstripes!
Fair enough, but that doesn't really respond to what started all this, which is the simple fact that what you wrote in #2 specifically ascribed the 2012 Yankees' motivation to win the division to the existence of the second WC. If it's just a case of picking a poor example, fine, but even if so it still raises the perfectly legitimate concern that SoSH noted in responding to you.
Granted. But that doesn't mean we have to exaggerate the benefits of the second wild card format, or disregard its disadvantages, or misrepresent the differences in incentives to perform well in the waning days of a given regular season under the respective systems. And please spare me the "nobody is doing that" bit. It is exactly what 2 and 3 did, even if they subsequently explained that it wasn't exactly what they meant to do. And lots of people in wider baseball fandom do the same thing without any appreciation whatsoever of the nuances.
All of the teams listed above would still be involved in this year's AL playoff hunt even without the second wild card. This year's NL is a better illustration of your point. Still, if Kemp hadn't missed 40 games we could easily have had 10 teams eliminated before Labor Day, and eventually there will be such a season, even with the two WC format.
That is a separate issue--the "I don't like the Wild Card" issue, and like I said,
Nothing involved in a baseball playoff system is anything close to a tragedy (yes, I know you are using hyperbole). You and I had a long go-round about this last year; as I said then, if you think "three teams for two spots!" is nail-biting excitement, and don't care about missing out on the Yankees and Red Sox tied on the last day with one going home, that is fine. I disagree. BTF collectively sometimes seems to be unable to see that these issues are in great part a matter of taste. I am contributing to that here, by arguing about it, but cerc and SOSH are doing that more directly when they assume that someone who doesn't agree with them on one WC or two is "ignoring" key issues or "hasn't thought it through." Not every basbeall subject involves a winable argument.
SOSH, obviously TVE is basing that post on "his Yankees", but that is kind of the point. If you're a big Yankee fan, like say Joe Girardi, you probably don't want any part of a one-game playoff in Oakland. Avoiding that game will be, I think, a motivator for teams leading divisions, since from their POV they could lose it as easily as winning it.
And snapper, by "rewarding performance", I meant "winning the division gets you out of the coin flip game", nothing more.
Fine, but again, this season's AL race is a lousy example of this aspect, since the Yankees would face missing the playoffs completely under the prior format. You seem to keep ignoring this key issue while claiming that no one is ignoring key issues. ;-)
Page 2 of 3 pages
< 1 2 3 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.