The point is that with such a large lead there is no real reason to empty the tank on a starter you will need again soon.

They didn't "empty the tank". 120 pitches is nothing arduous for a rested, healthy pitcher.

If they had him throw 140, I'd agree with you. But, 120 is a typical CC start. That's what he does.

The point is that with such a large lead there is no real reason to empty the tank on a starter you will need again soon.

I think people are questioning whether or not it really empties the tank.

OK - is "empties (completely)" or "empties (as in some further, unspecified amount)"?

I doubt CC comes out completely gassed by any stretch, but I do think it's a matter of why use up ANY of what you don't need to use up?

I doubt CC comes out completely gassed by any stretch, but I do think it's a matter of why use up ANY of what you don't need to use up?

Exactly.

They didn't "empty the tank". 120 pitches is nothing arduous for a rested, healthy pitcher.

So then 110 would be as well and it wouldn't increase the risk of a Yankee loss in Game 1 nor CC not being as crisp the next time he pitches.


What if the first batter he faces in the 9th takes up 10 pitches but ends in a strikeout? Does Joe pull him then? What if the next batter takes up 10 pitches but also ends in a strikeout? Does Joe pull him then? And if he gets the third batter out by throwing another 10 pitches was it all worth it?

You guys are saying it was 120 pitches, no big deal but Joe didn't know it was only going to be 120 pitches. All he knew is that his team needed 3 more outs with a 5 run lead to get the win and CC had thrown 110 pitches already.

If Joe's plan was to pull him the first time a runner got on base then it was pointless to send CC out there.

So you're asserting that if you take out the times he did well, his line would be worse? Iiiiinnnnnteresting.

If you don't count the World Series, Reggie Jackson hit .235/.302/.404 in the postseason.

If they had him throw 140, I'd agree with you. But, 120 is a typical CC start. That's what he does.

In his last 64 starts, he's reached 115 pitches 12 times and 120 pitches 5 times.

120 is a typical CC start. That's what he does.

He does it two or three times a season--except in 2008, when he did it five times.

His typical pitch count is 110 pitches, which is why it was a bit strange for them to bring him back for the 9th with a 5 run lead when he was already at 110. That was only the second postseason start where he's reached 115.

You pay these guys to throw big innings for your team; what could be bigger than a ninth inning postseason game? Take the context out; the opponent and the lead. I want my best pitcher throwing at that time. And CC was, IMO, the Yankees' best option to pitch the ninth inning right there.

I've got no strong opinion, but would note that where you are in the order matters. Due up were Machado/Davis/Ford; Davis had hit CC well earlier in the game but the other two hadn't. CC got the first two on six pitches; Ford made a hit on the tenth of the inning. Honestly, in that tactical situation I'd have let CC pitch to either Andino or Flaherty, neither of whom remind anybody of George Brett. And why tire a reliever now, even a little? But managers figure, there's a man on base now, I must go to my bullpen. It probably has no longterm impact on anything.

You pay these guys to throw big innings for your team; what could be bigger than a ninth inning postseason game? Take the context out; the opponent and the lead. I want my best pitcher throwing at that time. And CC was, IMO, the Yankees' best option to pitch the ninth inning right there.

Why would you take context out?

CC after 110 pitches was not the best option to pitch the 9th inning.

Baseball isn't played context free.

You pay these guys to throw big innings for your team; what could be bigger than a ninth inning postseason game? Take the context out; the opponent and the lead.

Why would you try to answer that question without the context?

What could be 'bigger'?

The 7th inning of a close game.
The 8th inning of a close game.
The 9th inning of a close game.
The 10th (or later) inning of a close game.
Any part of an ALDS game 4.
Any part of an ALDS game 5.
Any part of an ALCS.
Any part of a World series.

I don't think the idea that it was "vanity" should just be brushed aside. I agree with two things here: the Yanks were winning no matter who was pitching, but the extra pitches won't have any real effect on CC's health. So basically it didn't matter who you put out there. It was irrelevant to the score and irrelevant to the health of your pitchers. So why not let vanity win out? Throw CC a bone, make him happy, make the Yankees fans happy. Wasn't it pure vanity to keep Roy Halladay in the 9th inning of his NLDS no-hitter with a 4 run lead?

What the heck, I have time today...

A-Rod with 2 outs and RISP in his postseason career:

10/8/95: Game 5 of ALDS. A-Rod came in as a pinch runner, and stayed in the game; he ended up batting with two outs and runners on first and second in the ninth of a tie game, and hit into a force. As you may be aware, the Mariners won anyway in extras.

10/14/95: ALCS Game 4. A-Rod pinch hit with two outs and a runner on second in the top of the ninth, and struck out. The Mariners were behind 7-0 at the time; had he been playing for the Yankees, I'm sure the media still would have blamed him for the loss.

Running total: 0/2.

10/4/97: ALDS Game 3. Strikeout with runners on the corners in the top of the first. Mariners won anyway, 4-2.

Running total: 0/3.

10/4/00: ALDS Game 2. Strikeout with runners on the corners in the top of the ninth. Mariners won anyway, 5-2. A-Rod also had an RBI groundout in the game, and an RBI single the game before, but the RBI hit came with one out and doesn't count.

(No other 2ORISP at bats in 2000. He did have a go-ahead two-run single in Game 5 of the ALCS, but that came with one out. His Game 6 RBI double was also with one out, and a runner on first only; he had a second double leading off the sixth while down by one, and a leadoff homer to start a too-little-too-late rally in the eighth. Running total: 0/4.)

10/8/04: ALDS Game 3. Popup with runners on first and second, two outs in the second. Groundout with a runner on second and two away in the sixth. Groundout with a runner on second and two out in the eighth. It's like a bonanza of clutch failure! Never mind the fact that the Yanks were ahead 3-1, 7-1, and 8-1 when these at bats occurred, let alone the magnificent performance of Game 2 (single and run in the third, go-ahead homer in the fifth, RBI single in the seventh, game-tying ground-rule double in the bottom of the twelfth. None of those things came with two outs. Nor did A-Rod's double, steal of third, and sprint home on a wild pitch to win Game 4 in the eleventh inning.)

10/13/04: ALCS Game 2. Strikeout with runners on the corners in the second. Flyout with the bases loaded in the eighth, which might have earned a few boos except that the Yankees were already up by 2 with Rivera on the mound.

10/17/04: ALCS Game 4. Groundout with a runner on second in the fifth. (Also had a two-run homer with two outs in the third, but Jeter was on first.)

10/18/04: ALCS Game 5. Flyout with a runner at second in the twelfth. (Also struck out with a runner on third and one out in the eighth, and was hit by a pitch with a man on third and two away in the sixth. Bad game for both A-Rod and the Yankees.)

So far: 0/11

10/4/05: ALDS Game 1. Groundout with a runner on second in the fourth. Yankees led 4-0, won 4-2.

10/9/05: ALDS Game 4. Strikeout with a runner on third in the third. (Also walked and scored in the sixth in a game the Yanks would win by a run.)

10/10/05: ALDS Game 5. Strikeout with a runner on second in the second. (Also came up as the tying run in the ninth and hit into a double play. Not his best work.)

0/14

10/5/06: ALDS Game 2. Strikeout with the bases loaded in the first. (Part of an 0/4 with 3 K's in a one-run loss.)

10/6/06: ALDS Game 3. Groundout with a runner on second in the first.

0/16

10/5/07: ALDS Game 2. Strikeout with a runner on second in the ninth of a tie game that the Yankees would lose in extras. For once, he is not the sole focus of attention; in fact, he's seen as being less important than a bug. (OK, a whole lot of bugs.)

0/17

10/7/09: ALDS Game 1. Flyout with a runner on second in the first. And then... wonder of wonders! Two-out RBI single in the fifth! And in the seventh... can it be? Yes! Another two-out RBI single! (To be fair, the Yankees were already ahead at the time of the first hit, and ahead by more at the time of the second.)

10/9/09: ALDS Game 2. Game-tying two-out RBI single in the sixth. (And, just for fun, a game-tying two-run homer in the ninth, albeit with no outs and a runner on first.)

10/17/09: ALCS Game 2. Flyout with the bases loaded in the twelfth. This never would have happened if he hadn't had that game-tying home run in the bottom of the eleventh! What was he thinking?

10/20/09: ALCS Game 4. Strikeout with a runner on third in the sixth. (The Yanks were ahead 5-1, partly because of A-Rod's two-run homer one inning earlier.)

10/22/09: ALCS Game 5. No at bats, but an intentional walk with two out and a runner on second in the seventh (real men swing the bat, whether they're being thrown four wide ones or not!) Also: intentional walk with two outs and NOBODY ON, with the Yanks down one in the ninth. Didn't the Angels know they were dealing with the greatest playoff choker in recent memory?

11/1/09: WS Game 4. Flyout with runners on first and second in the fifth. Tiebreaking RBI double with runners on the corners in the ninth. (If I say it without emphasis, does that make it seem less awesome?)

Running total: 4/25

10/6/10: ALDS Game 1. Strikeout with runners on first and second in the third.

10/15/10: ALCS Game 1. Flyout with a runner on second in the ninth. The Yanks were ahead by a run, thanks to a five-run eighth-inning rally in which A-Rod had a two-run single, but it came with no outs.

10/16/10: ALCS Game 2. Forceout with two on in the third.

4/28

9/30/11: ALDS Game 1. Flyout with a runner at second in the fifth (with the Yanks ahead 2-1, and an RBI groundout from A-Rod earlier in the game); strikeout with a runner at second in the ninth (with the Yanks ahead 9-1).

4/30

Yesterday: ALDS Game 1. Strikeout with runners on the corners in a tie game in the seventh.

So it's now 4/31 in his playoff career with 2ORISP, which is obviously not good - but not all 2ORISP at bats are important, and not all important at bats come with 2ORISP, and over the course of his career, A-Rod has been a net positive to his teams during the playoffs.

Anyway, the thread has moved on at this point, but as mentioned above, I have time today.

Also, it's 31 ABs over 17 years.

Also, it's 31 ABs over 17 years.

Really, for any sample of 50 AB or less, they should probably just report it as H/AB, rather than as an actual batting average; it takes away the false sense of confidence in the number. If you say "A-Rod is 4/30 with two outs and runners in scoring position in his playoff career," that still sucks, but it sucks over a small and defined sample.

It is obvious to me that the optimal number of pitches Sabathia should have thrown is 97.3. Between the 97th and 98th pitches will come a catastrophic breakdown in his left shoulder rendering him useless for the remainder of his career. Joe Girardi is history's greatest villian for not contemplating that.

The pitch count thing, and the people that become instant authorities on it based on arbitrary numbers, is the most annoying pseudo-science that I see throughout the baseball community. Sometimes there is no "right" number. As it pertains to veteran pitchers, obviously not in distress, I have no problem with them throwing 120-130 pitches.

You make beautiful strawmen.

Seriously, guys who have two out game winning hits in the 9th inning of a World Series game should get mostly a lifetime pass. Any other player would...especially if he had incredibly dramatic extra inning homers that postseason also.

A-Rod has a lot of huge hits with less than 2 outs.

You make beautiful strawmen.

seriously.

A talking strawman in the other direction would say "pitching more, rather than less, has no effect on effectiveness or pitcher health, and the Yankees should start CC again in game 2, and why not game 3 as well etc etc"

So it's now 4/31 in his playoff career with 2ORISP, which is obviously not good - but not all 2ORISP at bats are important, and not all important at bats come with 2ORISP,

True enough on both points

and over the course of his career, A-Rod has been a net positive to his teams during the playoffs.

But what teams? And relative to what?

A-Rod's overall career OPS is .945. For the postseason it's .873.

But since Yankee fans are Yankee fans and not Mariners fans, let's look at his postseason OPS numbers in New York.

2004:
ALDS 1.213
ALCS .895

2005:
ALDS .635

2006:
ALDS .205

2007:
ALDS .820

2009:
ALDS 1.500
ALCS 1.519
World Series .973

2010:
ALDS .580
ALCS .606

2011:
ALDS .372

Through 2011, A-Rod's been in eleven postseason series with the Yankees, over the course of seven seasons.

In four of those series (2004 DS, all three 2009 series) he essentially performed on superstar levels, especially when you factor in his situational hitting. His 2009 postseason rivals some of the best of all time, particularly considering that unlike many earlier ones, it took place over three series, not one or two.

In two of them (2004 LCS, 2007 DS) he performed only slightly under his regular season rates, but in context they were far worse. In the 2004 LCS he was 2 for 17 in the final four games, and in 2007 he came up dry in every close situation.

And in five of them (2005, 2006, 2010, 2011 DS; 2010 LCS), he stunk up the joint.

Which comes down to this: In seven years in New York (not counting 2012), he's been a big "net positive" to his team in one of those years, a mixed bag but marginally positive in one, and a net negative in five. That's a more accurate assessment of A-Rod's postseason Yankee performance than just lumping all those years together and averaging them out.

And sorry, but what he did in Seattle doesn't mean squat, any more than his MVP seasons in New York mean anything to the Mariners or Rangers. And in the context of this discussion, his overall career and regular season numbers are completely beside the point.

Really, for any sample of 50 AB or less, they should probably just report it as H/AB, rather than as an actual batting average; it takes away the false sense of confidence in the number. If you say "A-Rod is 4/30 with two outs and runners in scoring position in his playoff career," that still sucks, but it sucks over a small and defined sample.

I actually hate that, because then I have to do math to figure out if its a good number or not. Is 23-for-87 with RISP good or bad? Just tell me the percentage and sample size, and let me decide whether its meaningful or not.

I actually hate that, because then I have to do math to figure out if its a good number or not. Is 23-for-87 with RISP good or bad? Just tell me the percentage and sample size, and let me decide whether its meaningful or not.

Anything bigger than 50 and the math becomes harder (although in your example, 23/87 is going to be probably around .270, which is mediocre). I'd be fine with percentage-and-sample-size as well, but TV broadcasts can't always be counted on to give the sample size (they didn't when reporting A-Rod's postseason 2ORISP numbers, for instance, and I'd bet that the casual viewer would have guessed him to have far more than 30 AB in that situation in his career).

Sometimes there is no "right" number. As it pertains to veteran pitchers, obviously not in distress, I have no problem with them throwing 120-130 pitches.

There is no right number. Also, here is the right number.

Good game by the Yankees, great season by the O's, my dog's sleeping on a lucky Wei-Yin Chen t-shirt. Can't wait for tonight.

And sorry, but what he did in Seattle doesn't mean squat

Then he was hitting .154 with 2ORISP in the playoffs coming into yesterday, not .133.

A-Rod's playoff career as a Yankee only, measured by WPA weighted by how important each game was to the team's championship chances at the time it was played:

2004: +.117
2005: -.039
2006: -.029
2007: -.020
2009: +.299
2010: +.003
2011: -.049

That's general mediocrity/lousiness in five out of seven years, very good performance once, and tremendous performance once. Overall, it's +.282, which strikes me as being a "net positive," and a pretty good-sized one.

For comparative purposes, A-Rod's 2009 postseason was about twice as good as Jeter's best one (2000, +.142).

And sorry, but what he did in Seattle doesn't mean squat

Then he was hitting .154 with 2ORISP in the playoffs coming into yesterday, not .133.

Okay, I was going by the number that was flashed on the screen late in last night's game, which then would have included what he'd done prior to that particular at bat.

That's general mediocrity/lousiness in five out of seven years, very good performance once, and tremendous performance once. Overall, it's +.282, which strikes me as being a "net positive," and a pretty good-sized one.

But again, you're averaging, which IMO is a strange way of looking at it. "General mediocrity/lousiness" in five out of seven years hardly strikes me as being a "net positive". He could have hit a home run in every single plate appearance in 2009, and that wouldn't have meant a thing to the Yankees in those other six years. Each year has to stand by itself.

For comparative purposes, A-Rod's 2009 postseason was about twice as good as Jeter's best one (2000, +.142).

That's lovely, but it still focuses on an irrelevant side question. Nobody's ever doubted for a second that A-Rod's overall 2009 postseason was among the greatest in baseball history. Considering the context many of those hits, in fact, it may well have been the best.

I don't see why averaging is a strange way to look at it. If he practically carried the Yankees on his back to a World Series win one year, that certainly trumps being a bit poor in a few other years.

But again, you're averaging, which IMO is a strange way of looking at it.

Adding, actually, not averaging.

Look, take a year from A-Rod's career in which he was a fine player, but not necessarily a spectacular one... say 2006 (.290/.392/.523). If you split that season (154 games played) into 22 7-game pieces, you get:

Nine OPSs of 1.050 or higher, with a peak of 1.356 in games 43-49
Four OPSs between .825 and .925
Nine OPSs of .715 or lower, with a valley of .450 in games 120-126

This adds up to a net positive, despite a pretty reasonable amount of time spent in mediocrity and/or lousiness.

Incidentally, none of the 22 7-game samples used comes especially close to the unbelievably tremendously superb performance A-Rod put up in the 9 games of the ALDS and ALCS in '09. Do I think that one year should buy him enough goodwill to overlook more than one mediocre-to-bad LDS in which the Yankees probably would have lost even if he'd played better? Considering he was easily the single most important factor in that particular championship, yeah, I do.

Yeah, it seems weird to say "A-Rod sucks in the postseason, except for that one time he carried the Yankees on his back to their only title in a decade."

Yeah, it seems weird to say "A-Rod sucks in the postseason, except for that one time he carried the Yankees on his back to their only title in a decade."

CONCUR.

Headline seems a little long; the Daily News must be slipping.

Jeter's 2 hits puts him at 193 for his postseason career. Could break the 200 hit mark this year. That record could stand for a long time.

Yeah, it seems weird to say "A-Rod sucks in the postseason, except for that one time he carried the Yankees on his back to their only title in a decade."

Okay, boys and girls, how's this? "A-Rod sucked in five out of seven postseasons, ruled the world in one, and produced mixed results in another."

Or this: "A-Rod was great in the postseason, except for the five seasons out of seven when he sucked."

I'm not sure why people seem to take offense at merely pointing out the obvious. This isn't a moral indictment.

Ugly forecast for tonight. Any idea what they do if they can't get this one in?

Travel day tomorrow, but I think there are sometimes CBA issues with just wiping out a travel day.

Ugly forecast for tonight. Any idea what they do if they can't get this one in?

I think they lose the travel day. However, the Weather Channel app is only showing a 10% chance of rain until 10:00PM, when it jumps to 40%. A bit cool, though.

"A-Rod was great in the postseason, except for the five seasons out of seven when he sucked."

I'm not sure why people seem to take offense at merely pointing out the obvious. This isn't a moral indictment.

Exactly. You could say very much the same thing about Barry Bonds or Mike Schmidt. (Or Josh Hamilton, the current Texas poster boy for the Heimlich Maneuver.) The fact that they were magic in one or two postseason series while batting like dead fish in several others is just that, a fact. That they were sometimes great proves that they were not somehow innately "unclutch." That they often sucked proves … that they often sucked.

Travel day tomorrow, but I think there are sometimes CBA issues with just wiping out a travel day.

I think the CBA issues are more of an issue during the season with the number of consecutive days a team can play rearing it's ugly head. During the playoffs I think the CBA issues would only be if you had a time zone situation. Both 2003 and 2004 ALCS featured rainouts eliminating offdays at the end of the series.

I'm not sure why people seem to take offense at merely pointing out the obvious. This isn't a moral indictment.

It was easy to take as one when you referred to A-Rod as "that third baseman who's now hitting under .133 with 2 outs and RISP in his long postseason career." And I'm sure there are plenty of Yankee fans out there who would be willing to make it one. But those people are not here (I assume), and I'll take your word for it when you say you weren't intending the criticism in that light.

Your answer to the question of whether A-Rod's postseason career has been a net positive for the Yankees, though, I still disagree with. But maybe that's just because I'm not a fan of a team that's entitled to a championship every year. (Smiley emoticon)

"A-Rod was great in the postseason, except for the five seasons out of seven when he sucked."

I'm not sure why people seem to take offense at merely pointing out the obvious. This isn't a moral indictment.

Exactly. You could say very much the same thing about Barry Bonds or Mike Schmidt. (Or Josh Hamilton, the current Texas poster boy for the Heimlich Maneuver.) The fact that they were magic in one or two postseason series while batting like dead fish in several others is just that, a fact. That they were sometimes great proves that they were not somehow innately "unclutch." That they often sucked proves … that they often sucked.

Right, and I'm not making any broader claims about the "clutchiness" or "unclutchiness" of A-Rod or anyone else. I'm talking about A-Rod's postseason Yankee performances, and nothing more.

But while A-Rod has obviously been a huge "net positive" for the Yankees as a whole, it's hard for me to avoid the fact that he's been the farthest thing from that in five out of the seven postseason years he's been with them. To me that's the most significant postseason "overall" number of them all.

The fact that the Yankees can only win in the postseason when A-Rod comes up big might be taken to say more about the rest of the Yankees than it does about A-Rod.

The fact that the Yankees can only win in the postseason when A-Rod comes up big might be taken to say more about the rest of the Yankees than it does about A-Rod

Truth. Though Cano's been raking the last few years. If the two of them managed to string a couple big games together at the same time...

The fact that the Yankees can only win in the postseason when A-Rod comes up big might be taken to say more about the rest of the Yankees than it does about A-Rod

Seems to me that it says a lot about the team as a whole, and to go beyond that you have to look at each year as a separate entity. The only reason people focus more on A-Rod is that his salary reflects what people consider to be his talent level. And while "what people consider" is often wildly out of date and based on unreasonable expectations for an aging player, a power hitter earning over $20 million is generally going to have a higher bar to clear than a player on a short term deal who was basically signed as a role player. When you're earning A-Rod level (or Jeter- or Teixeira-level) salaries, you're expected to "carry the team on your back" more than if you're Russell Martin or Nick Swisher. That's an expectation that simply comes with the territory.

But while A-Rod has obviously been a huge "net positive" for the Yankees as a whole, it's hard for me to avoid the fact that he's been the farthest thing from that in five out of the seven postseason years he's been with them. To me that's the most significant postseason "overall" number of them all.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. What I think I'm reading is that you'd be happier with A-Rod if he'd played worse in '09, and better by an equal amount in at least a couple of the years when he played badly. I have a hard time coming around to that position, because if A-Rod plays worse by even a little in '09, there's an excellent chance you lose that title, and you're hardly guaranteed to pick one up in the other years, because the Yanks didn't even make it to the Series in any of them. (If A-Rod plays better in 2010, for instance, it's not going to make a bit of difference, because all four of the Yankee losses in the ALCS that year were by at least 5 runs.)

I suppose we probably make the series (and possibly win) in 04 if he hits better in the second half of the series. But that was a concerted team collapse they pulled off there.

I suppose we probably make the series (and possibly win) in 04 if he hits better in the second half of the series.

Depends on the game - 4 or 5, probably; 7, it's unlikely to matter. But even though the Sox swept them, a Series win against the '04 Cards is no guarantee.

I'll take Starlin Castro going 0-1000 in the rest of his PA if it means the Cubs win a world series in the next year or two.

Flags fly forever.

Your answer to the question of whether A-Rod's postseason career has been a net positive for the Yankees, though, I still disagree with. But maybe that's just because I'm not a fan of a team that's entitled to a championship every year. (Smiley emoticon)

The Yankees earn their playoff bonafides each and every season on the baseball diamond, as the good lord intended. If you're looking for teams with entitlement issues, you should start with those poormouth welfare frauds who have been raking in the free dough for nearly 20 years with naught to show for it but big new mansions and yachts for their owners and continued ticket hikes for their fans.

a Series win against the '04 Cards is no guarantee

Well, yeah. Esp with our horrid pitching that year. But I said "possibly."

Okay, boys and girls, how's this? "A-Rod sucked in five out of seven postseasons, ruled the world in one, and produced mixed results in another."

How's this: "Postseason splits such as '.133 with 2 outs in RISP' are too small a sample to be meaningful, and it's silly to care about them, even if TBS flashes them at you during the broadcast."

Stop letting TBS do your thinking for you, Andy.

In any event, it's hard for me to understand what you're complaining about. You'd rather have ARod be flakey in the playoffs -- turning in some great series and more poor series -- than have him hit roughly average in each. Please try to notice that his great postseason got you a bleeping championship in 2009.

I'll take Starlin Castro going 0-1000 in the rest of his PA

And we thought that "Jason Bay has a low batting average" was threadworthy.

I suppose we probably make the series (and possibly win) in 04 if he hits better in the second half of the series. But that was a concerted team collapse they pulled off there.

And now we're looking at halfs of series. Wild.