User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5021 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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.
1. JJ1986 Posted: April 09, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4100903)If this is true, Teixeira should probably stop switch-hitting. He's much better as righty anyway.
Well, "Yankees will be fine; still huge favorites to make playoffs" is a shitty headline.
1) It was an expansion year. You can't count "most wins" in expansion years the same as others; look at 1961, 62, 93, and others as examples of how very good teams win a LOT of games when you introduce a few lousy teams.
2) There were two other MLB teams whose pythag records were vitrualy as good as (within 2 games) of the Yanks; Atlanta and Houston. And both of those might have whupped NY in a Series (but both were upset by the Padres). The Astros, who had picked up the Big Unit down the stretch, looked truly formidable. Lastly, the Yankees did not have a scary 1-2 strating pitcher punch you would think would be needed for a playoff. With their lineup, it was enough to dispose of Texas and Cleveland and SD tho.
The Yanks also had interleague that year and had to play the Braves, Mets, Phillies, Expos, and Marlins. Braves won 106 games that year and the Mets 88 games. They went 5-2 against them and 10-2 against the rest of the NL East. The 1998 Yankees didn't just beat up on the Rays they beat up on everybody. The only teams they didn't were the Angels, Red Sox, and Blue Jays.
Concur. I don't view the '98 Yankess as an all-time great team. I doubt they're top-10.
(not saying this as Yankee hatred; I could argue the 39 Yanks as #1 all day long)
I would agree that it is hard to say but that is true for all teams that are in the running for greatest of all time. The 1939 Yanks had a pretty easy league and probably played against some AAAA level teams. Same with the 1927 team.
No team in history puts up a lot of wins without having a flawed league to play against.
Wait what? They won 125 total games, navigating through 3 rounds of playoffs and were part of a dynasty. What's your definition of a great team?
Good points, but overall, wouldn't the talent around the league - particularly the pitching - be a bit diluted?
I think a more important point is that the sillyball era tended to exaggerate the differences between the rich and poor clubs since pitching became such a premium, and higher scoring games are won more by the superior team, and 1998 was the rise of the sillyball era. This was also probably the height of the difference in revenues for large and small market teams, when revenue sharing was at its lowest levels, and few small market clubs had figured out how to manage in this new climate and find inefficiencies in the market.
I don't think its a coincedence that just three years later a team actually won more games than the '98 Yankees.
Meanwhile, the sheer depth of HOVG types on the '98 Yankees is extremely impressive: Cone, Wells, Pettitte; Posada, Tino, Bernie, O'Neill, Chili Davis, Darryl Strawberry. Chuck Knoblauch was a hell of a player. Scott Brosius was one of the best defensive 3B of his era and hit .300 that year. Their bench and bullpen were loaded with guys having career part-time seasons. It's hard to think of teams with more weapons at their disposal.
I would agree that it is hard to say but that is true for all teams that are in the running for greatest of all time. The 1939 Yanks had a pretty easy league and probably played against some AAAA level teams. Same with the 1927 team.
No team in history puts up a lot of wins without having a flawed league to play against.
You can take any "greatest team" in history and deconstruct it down, but if you add up the strengths, the weaknesses, the roster depth, the actual regular season and postsesaon accomplishments, and the overall talent pools of the league and the competition, IMO the 1998 Yanks are still at the top, especially if you use the surrounding years as a tiebreaker.
That's an interesting bit of math where 120 wins beats 125. Or didn't the Mariners have any control over their inability to win 127?
Right.
Good points, but overall, wouldn't the talent around the league - particularly the pitching - be a bit diluted?
Possibly but the expansion team the Yankees did play had a very good pitching staff. So one could argue that the Rays instead of diluting the pitching talent of the AL actually concentrated it because they took talent away from the NL.
The Rays had a 110 ERA+ and gave up the third least amount of runs in the AL and that is including all the runs the Yankees put up on them in order to win 11 games against them.
Over in the NL both the Diamondbacks and Brewers featured bad pitching staffs that were near the bottom of the league in runs scored and ERA+.
Until Shane Spencer came up with his 35 home runs in 15 games or whatever it was!
Since 116 > 114, the math works just fine.
Until Shane Spencer came up with his 35 home runs in 15 games or whatever it was!
10 home runs, 27 RBI and a 236 OPS+ in 27 regular season games, then a 2.000 OPS in the DS and a 1.000 OPS in the World Series. He may have done nothing after that, but he'll always be True Yankee.
Since 116 > 114, the math works just fine.
Yeah, since the postseason is nothing but a bunch of exhibition games that don't mean anything, I guess that's "logical".
THat's the thing...it wasn't just the starters. Almost every player on the roster contributed. Curtis was mediocre, but Raines and Spencer were both very good.
Even Girardi was probably significantly above average by the standards of backup catchers.
Andy,
AG's argument was that the silly ball era heightened the differences between the good and the bad clubs. Therefore, the fact that Seattle didn't perform as well in the postseason has no bearing on whether racking up wins during the season was a little easier during that time frame (I'm not sure he's correct, I just don't think the teams' postseason performances has any relevance to the argument he's making).
If he were arguing whetehr the 01 Mariners were better than the 98 Yanks, then their respective results in the postseason fun fest would have some merit. But he wasn't.
Besides the usual suspects I think one team that doesn't get the attention it deserves in the 1970 Orioles. That was a very well rounded team, they won 108 games and they were in the midst of a 5 out of 6 AL East champs run so it was not some kind of fluke.
Y'know, that's OK.
This is always an interesting question, especially in baseball, where some of the greatest teams of all time didn't win the WS: 1906 Cubs, 1931 Athletics, 1954 Indians, 1960 Yankees, 1969 Orioles, 1995 Indians, 2001 Mariners... not to mention how some teams didn't even have a WS to win...
"and Scott Brosius"?
The 98 Yanks should have been more comfortable because their third baseman was a journeyman coming off a 56 OPS+ season rather than a sure Hall of Famer coming off an injury riddled 116 OPS+ season?
No. But no one expected the 98 Yankees to be the 98 Yankees before the season. It's only looking backward, when we know that things went exceedingly well for the club in just about every way, when those Yankees become an unstoppable juggernaut.
Truth is, there's not much chance that Hall of Fame-bound Arod is better in 2012 than otherwise pedestrian Scott Brosius was in 1998. There's also little doubt that 2012 Arod would have projected to be much better than Scott Brosius projected in 1998.
Also Tino was not HoVG, he was average (pretty much dead on average). He was very good in 98 though.
Even though he ended up as a Met? Oh, the horrors...
Fair enough. I think I'm showing my age – when I was a kid, guys with 330 HR and 1270 RBI were Hank Greenberg. By the late 1990s they were nothing to write home about :)
Quite frankly, I don't see anything that separates the '98 Yankees from the surrounding years.
The top players weren't any better, they just got lucky with some fluke/career best seasons (Brosius, Strawberry (at that point in his career), Spencer, Irabu), and no significant injuries, or suckage.
I just don't see the elite players to make this a "top-10" team.
1906 Cubs, 1931 Athletics, 1954 Indians, 1960 Yankees, 1969 Orioles, 1995 Indians, 2001 Mariners
Several of those teams were likely better (relative to competition - no time machine logic please) than the '98 Yankees.
Among Yankee WS winner only, I'd certainly take the '27 team, the '39 team, and your favorite of the early '50s teams over the '98 squad.
Brosius had a 5.7 WAR that year. A Rod hasn't topped that since 2007. Yeah, I'd call that an advantage.
I named three Yankee teams alone. I'd probably take the '76 Reds, the '29 A's, the '06 Cubs, one of the late '60s, early '70's O's teams as well, just off the top of my head.
Nah, I'd call it a fluke. If you replayed '98 1000 times, he match that 2 or 3.
If we're not going to look at underlying talent, and go only by results, we can just take the '06 Cubs (116-36) and be done with it. Once we go beyond the bottom line, we need to adjust for flukes ('98 Yanks had lots) and injuries ('98 Yanks had almost none).
I don't know what the hell you're arguing. The point about Brosius vs A Rod has nothing to do with the 1906 Cubs, flukes, or anything else. It has to with how likely these 0-3 Yanks are to match the 1998 0-3 Yanks in eventual seasonal accomplishments. Brosius's fluke contributed wins the the bottom line. A Rod is very unlikely to match that fluke, and thus these Yanks are less likely to match the 1998 version.
You seem to be arguing some platonic ideal of team strength and true ability. But no one means that when they say "This team will not match that team". They're talking about winning 110+ games and strolling through the post-season. And these guys are a lot less likely to do that, in part because Alex Rodriguez is unlikely to add as many wins as Scott Brosius did, and a 38 year old Jeter is not likely to contribute as much as his 24 year old self did.
You seem to be arguing some platonic ideal of team strength and true ability. But no one means that when they say "This team will not match that team". They're talking about winning 110+ games and strolling through the post-season. And these guys are a lot less likely to do that, in part because Alex Rodriguez is unlikely to add as many wins as Scott Brosius did, and a 38 year old Jeter is not likely to contribute as much as his 24 year old self did.
The conversation had moved on from there. No one except mouth-breathing fanboy morons thinks any team will ever will 110 games. It's a fluke whenever it happens.
More importantly, winning 110 games is statistical trivia; the 2000 WS banner hangs just as high, and there's literally no difference between 104 wins and 114.
The discussion was about whether the '98 Yankees were a top-10 all-time team, and I was arguing the contrary b/c they owe their perfromance to an unusual paucity of injuries and a plethora of flukes.
The 1998 Yankees were just an awesomely balanced team, a 116 OPS+ and a 116 ERA+ and nary an MVP or Cy Young candidate in sight... (OK Jeter was/should have been an MVP candidate, but his problem was Nomar who had superficially better numbers - it was pretty much a draw between them- and so voters couldn't vote for Jeter because Nomah was better, and they couldn't vote for Nomah because the Redsox didn't win... and they couldn't vote for Nomah or Jeter because there was AROD, and you couldn't vote for AROD because the Mariners didn't win and beadies Griffey was Mr. Mariner...and hey look that guy in Arlington/Dallas had 157 ribbies!)
The top players weren't any better, they just got lucky with some fluke/career best seasons (Brosius, Strawberry (at that point in his career), Spencer, Irabu), and no significant injuries, or suckage.
I just don't see the elite players to make this a "top-10" team.
I think this adds to the 98 Yanks cred. Take the years surrounding:
in the 3 seasons before: 1 WS title, 2 divisions, 1 wild card.
in the 3 seasons following: 2 WS titles, 3 pennants
Put 114 wins smack in the center of that run and it looks pretty damned historically great.
And I say this as someone who is a) not a Yankees fan (quite the opposite) and b) not thinking the 1998 Yanks ARE the greatest. But they absolutely have to be in the conversation.
Looking at how many 'all-time greats' are on a team is all well and good but games aren't won by adding up everyone's career WAR. And I say that as someone who isn't anti-WAR.
No, but it gives you a sense of how representative the great performance was. i.e. how fluky or non-fluky.
I also think elite talent dominates more as the competition gets tougher, so if we had some sort of mythical "Champions League" where the great teams faced off, I'd rather have the team with the Inner-Circle HoFers.
The 1998 Yankees were just an awesomely balanced team, a 116 OPS+ and a 116 ERA+
Well, '27 Yankees 127 OPS+, 122 ERA+. '39 Yankees 111/133. '06 Cubs 103/151!.
Although I don't think OPS+/ERA+ is a good way of looking at it. OPS+ has a much wider range, and also you're not accounting for the difference of variation across era.
I think Neyer's book on great teams, uses SDs of RS and RA. I'll have to dig it out tonight. That's the right way.
And by that method, they ranked the 1998 Yankees 3rd or 4th.
It's the right way of assessing RS/RA. I think you need to go further than that. I disagree with their conclusion. Is that no longer allowed?
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1986 Mets
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees
The 1990s Braves will end up being underrated by history.
AG's argument was that the silly ball era heightened the differences between the good and the bad clubs. Therefore, the fact that Seattle didn't perform as well in the postseason has no bearing on whether racking up wins during the season was a little easier during that time frame (I'm not sure he's correct, I just don't think the teams' postseason performances has any relevance to the argument he's making).
If he were arguing whetehr the 01 Mariners were better than the 98 Yanks, then their respective results in the postseason fun fest would have some merit. But he wasn't.
In that specific comment, I was responding to Trolling Ray, not anyone else. Ray seems to equate the postseason with Spring training for the purpose of evaluation.
---------------------------------------------
I think this adds to the 98 Yanks cred. Take the years surrounding:
in the 3 seasons before: 1 WS title, 2 divisions, 1 wild card.
in the 3 seasons following: 2 WS titles, 3 pennants
Put 114 wins smack in the center of that run and it looks pretty damned historically great.
Although in the 3 prior years it was actually 1 division + WS title and 2 wild cards, the point still holds. The only other teams with remotely that sort of surrounding context were the late 00's Cubs, the late 30's Yankees and the early 50's Yankees. The first two were products of the Jim Crow era with much smaller talent pools. The early 50's Yanks were great clutch performers but hardly dominant in their own league, having won their first 4 pennants by a total of 11 games. The '98 Yanks were completely dominant within their league, in the postseason, and in the surrounding years they clearly achieved the most success. The '75 Reds and '70 Orioles had surrounding success, but neither of them had the offensive / defensive balance that the Yanks had. The other contenders either sank like a lead balloon in the following year ('68 an '84 Tigers, '86 Mets), or were like another version of the early 50's Yankees (the early 70's A's), accomplished but not really dominant. And the '01 Mariners neither accomplished anything in the postseason (they barely survived Cleveland and were easily beaten by the Yankees) nor followed up with anything but October vacations. The only way they enter the picture is to eliminate everything but one regular season.
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1986 Mets
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees
Good chronological order choices.
The 1990s Braves will end up being underrated by history.
I think that their incredible run of success in the NLW and the NLE will be both noted and admired, but I also don't think that the "random chance" card can be applied to something like 13 out of 14 postseasons without getting a bit shopworn. They were the second greatest dynasty in an era that just happened to produce a slightly better one.
They're arguably the best (single season) NL squad of the 1990's, or of the period between the 1986 Mets and the 2004-5 Cardinals.
Of course that just made the ensuing postseason failure all the more epic...
Braves' pitching staff was miles better than the Astros' staff and the Astros were only slightly better on offense.
And Ray was responding to your Post 18, when you did just what I mentioned above.
The Orioles led the league in runs scored and runs allowed and came a few runs scored in '69 away from doing it three years running. They were plenty balanced.
But if you're talking about the greatest single season teams ever, then you have to count the flukes. The 1998 Yankees didn't get Scott Brosius' career average ZiPS projection; they got Scott Brosius' 1998 season. The 2001 Mariners didn't have a league average hitter at second base; they had Brett Boone's career year.
That's kind of misleading (or incomplete). The Angels and Rangers shouldn't be confused with the Rays and Rangers. They were decent teams playing in what was probably the best division (by record) ever assembled. The AL West teams had a .579 WP in games played outside the division that season.
That's also misleading (or incomplete). That non-division winning percentage was built by the M's and A's, not by the Angels and Rangers. The Rangers actually had a better winning percentage within the division than outside it (.466 vs .451), while the Angels were just hideous against their division rivals in 2001 for some reason. More importantly, it misses my point, which is simply that the unbalanced schedule makes a substantial difference. The 1998 Yankees might very well have won even more games with an unbalanced schedule.
The Orioles led the league in runs scored and runs allowed and came a few runs scored in '69 away from doing it three years running. They were plenty balanced.
1970 Orioles ERA+ 116
1998 Yankees ERA+ 116
1970 Orioles OPS+ 105
1998 Yankees OPS+ 116
1970 Orioles pythag 104-58
1998 Yankees pythag 108-54
Number of starters with an OPS+ of 120 or better
1970 Orioles 3
1998 Yankees 6
Weakest link in 1998 Yankees starting lineup - Chad Curtis, OPS+ of 90
Weakest link in 1970 Orioles starting lineup - Mark Belanger, OPS+ of 56
The 1970 O's were a great team. They just weren't quite as great as the 1998 Yankees.
They're arguably the best (single season) NL squad of the 1990's, or of the period between the 1986 Mets and the 2004-5 Cardinals.
Yeah, and as you say, that makes their postseason El Foldo even more striking. I wonder how many people figured that the 34 year old Johnson would've posted a 1.28 ERA in Houston after a 4.28 in Seattle? And the Astrodome / Kingdome difference couldn't have accounted for that much of it, considering that the adjusted ERA+ rates were 107 and 322.
It all depends on whether they can coax Frank Tanana out of retirement.
That 105 OPS+ led the league. Team OPS+ numbers are skewed for leagues without a DH, because the baseline doesn't include pitchers and the team batting numbers do.
Or, to put it another way, the league average OPS+ for the 1970 AL was 93. 105/93 is 113. 116-113 is hardly a decisive advantage.
So, the non-division winning percentage was actually built by three teams, not just two. And the point is, the Angels and the Rangers weren't Rays and Royals-level bad, but middling teams stuck in a division with two giants. Stockpiling wins against them was not easy.
They might have, but it's not the most logical conclusion. Even removing the Yankees from the mix, the rest of the AL East in 1998 was decent (far better than the Central and almost on par with the AL West). Swapping games out from the latter two divisions and adding them to the former does not make for an easier schedule.
That 105 OPS+ led the league. Team OPS+ numbers are skewed for leagues without a DH, because the baseline doesn't include pitchers and the team batting numbers do.
Or, to put it another way, the league average OPS+ for the 1970 AL was 93. 105/93 is 113. 116-113 is hardly a decisive advantage.
Point taken, but you also have to remember that the relatively big NL to AL advantage that was still there in 1970 had disappeared by 1998, a fact that the BB-ref stats don't reflect. Not to mention that by 1998 the overall talent pool in MLB, and the AL in particular, had been markedly improved by the deeper and deeper reach into Latin America and the Caribbean. It's not anything like the talent pool difference between 1906/1927/1939 and 1970, but it's still something that has to be taken into account, even allowing for expansion.
For more, check out
this awesome new book!!
Sure. I didn't mean to come off as sticking up for the 1970 Orioles, so much as sticking up for the proper use of team OPS+, which is often a highly deceptive statistic as presented on B-R. (I've seen Rob Neyer do the same thing, for instance.)
The other thing about Belanger is that the team was constructed to be able to pinch-hit at will for him. (Plus of course OPS+ somewhat underrates Belanger in that his .303 OBP wasn't that horrendous)
They didn't have to pinch hit for him all that much because they were generally ahead, but Belanger did have the fewest high leverage PAs of any of the regulars.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main