“You can’t live with Mark Reynolds and his strikeouts in the lineup!” (Michael the K…pre-scouting Mandrake Root for key spot on CenterStage)
The Yankees were beaten, 10-6, Thursday and there are few words to properly describe the carnage. The Bombers mounted a five-run rally in the eighth, tying the game at 6, only to watch helplessly as Adam Jones, Mark Reynolds and Chris Davis all hit home runs in the bottom half of the inning.
The Birds embarrassed Yankees’ pitchers to the tune of six homers as they climbed into a tie for first place, standing up to the Bombers in a way no one could’ve ever imagined a month ago. But that was before the Orioles and Rays finally discovered how vulnerable the Yankees are, how they’re being consumed by something deeper and more insidious than a late-summer slump. This has the makings of a historic collapse, and no one – not Joe Girardi or Brian Cashman — seems to have the power to reverse it.
...One AL executive who’s studied the Bombers’ downward spiral says the damage goes beyond the standings. Instead, the Yankees are being stripped of the aura of invincibility that accompanied their 10-game lead in July. “Whenever they don’t run out a ball now, or whenever one of their pitchers doesn’t back up, we say, ‘Look at that, the Yankees are human, too,’” he said. “You respect them, but the last thing you want is to be intimidated. It’s a big step when you realize the Yankees are just players who make mistakes, too.”
Repoz
Posted: September 07, 2012 at 06:08 AM |
87 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
orioles,
yankees
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. Dan Posted: September 07, 2012 at 07:02 AM (#4229030)Well, unless they win tonight...then they are gritty veterans who 'know how to win' and can 'shrug off a terrible loss.'
I think they'll still qualify for the postseason in some way, but I wouldn't bet on them to win a single full round of the playoffs.
Imagine if the Orioles were actually a good team?
Seriously, though, the Yankees have in recent years done a good job finding role players who, although you'd think they're replacement level, contribute to the team. It does sort of make them seem invincible.
I can't figure out the O's thing. Is this one more feather in Showalter's HOF cap?
It would have been 6-1 then since Girardi would have used Lowe to start the 8th instead of Robertson and Lowe dominated.
If you're really looking for him and not just trolling you can find him in the AL playoff race thread.
With the same luck? They'd probably be on a pace to win 110 games.
I of course stand by everything I wrote last year re the Red Sox at the time I wrote it. It was so unlikely that they were going to fail to qualify for the exhibitionseason that claiming that they were sure to lose -- and that's what some people were doing despite me taking all the heat for doing the opposite -- was incredibly silly.
Though I wasn't high on the Red Sox entering the season, my one source of optimism was I wasn't high on the Yankees either. Considering the age and injuries, it surprised me they played as well as they did for as long as they did.
They aren't dead yet. You guys are making the classic horror movie mistake of assuming the monster is dead. There's still a whole third act left!
True, but it's Derek Lowe.
Ok, but Van Helsing has opened the coffin and he's got the stake and mallet in his hands. Also, the early morning sun Is pouring in through the windows.
Since August 3, the O's have gone 22-9. Their run differential has been +45 (156-111).
I'm cherry-picking an endpoint here, obviously, but they're playing excellent baseball right now. They've been riding an outstanding bullpen (5 guys under 3.00 ERA plus a revitalized Brian Matusz), they've patched the gaping holes in their rotation, and they've made two big defensive upgrades in the second half (Machado for Betemit at 3B, McLouth for Davis in LF). They're not this good, but they're a much better team than they were on Opening Day. They may pull this off.
My main source of optimism about the Yankees entering the season was the weak links in all of the other ALE teams. Their starting rotation has always had that pretty good upside / pretty bad downside to it, and true to form, it's blown hot and cold on and off many times throughout the season. When they're all in top form, they're capable of excellence, but nobody who took their ages and track records into consideration should have been expecting Cinderella not to eventually return into a pumpkin.
I supported the Cashman strategy of trying to downsize the payroll below the luxury tax level, and still do, but the obvious downside to that is that you've got to keep winning the lottery with players like Jones and Ibanez, and that doesn't always work out. Add the injuries and truth be told, you're looking at a team that's running on air. At this point I'd be shocked if they can stagger through and get to the postseason.
"Was that...the boogeyman?"
"No, dear, it was just...Joba."
Agreed. I was being facetious. I think they're a much better team than their season-long run differential says they are.
the real way to think about the math, seems to me, is to sub in AJ for 25 Freddy Garcia starts. this year's AJ looks like an improvement over Freddy; this year's Freddo looks like a dead ringer for 2010-2011 AJ.
what surprises me is that even after years and years of almost-total FAIL the Yanks still seemed to have been thinking "yeah, our promising young arms will finally develop into solid starters this year." guys--you're the Yankees! your starting pitching prospects WILL ALWAYS FAIL.
Clearly a man who has never watched a sequel. That don't mean nuthin.
Not to mention, how does Peter Cushing know the sun is pouring in? He looked away to see. Fool!! Pull the drapes man!!
Hughes is about 50/50 between Fail and being pretty useful. Wang had a few good years in him before he got hurt and stopped being able to get people out. From 2005-08 he gave them over 600 innings of above average starting pitching for less than what Soriano costs per year (including the money paid to him in 2009).
This is exactly the Yankees' problem right now. After CC and Kuroda, they have been very inconsistent. So when the bats also go south, as they have at times, things get very ugly.
I love being noticed!
I've been concerned for a while, and I think I've said as much here. As SG notes, their too much garbage playing nearly everyday. Chavez's brief resurrection kept them going longer than they should have. There are a couple things in particular that I haven't seen anyone mention.
Robertson has stopped throwing his curveball (completely stole this observation from Riveraveblues). Since then, he has gone from being invincible to good. Last night wasn't the first time in recent history he got uncharacteristically shelled while throwing all fastballs and cutters (IIRC, he threw 1 curve and 1 change). Typically he throws 20% curves. Something is up with him.
I really wish they hadn't traded Mitchell for sucktastic Ichiro! Mitchell was not a great prospect by any means, but he's a MLB ready arm who could have either soaked up innings when Phelps or Garcia #### the bed, or come in and been a better middle reliever/long man than Derek ####### Lowe. And Ichiro!, for his part, has played worse than Dewayne Wise, the guy they cut to add him. A small thing, but considering how many close games they have lost recently, it was a lousy move. But hey, gotta sell those Ichiro! jerseys right?
However, the Yanks still have a decent rotation, and their offense will be back to full speed before too much longer. They could very easily lose here, considering that the O's have their number and the Rays look pretty good right now. But hey, I've been bored with the last few years of September baseball, here's hoping the Yanks either pull away or they win a tight, exciting pennant race.
On the flip side, the orioles don't have an ace, but they've had 5-6 decent starters (Chen, Tillman, Britton, Gonzalez, Johnson, and Saunders) for the last few weeks. And now they have Hammel back.
Well, Joe Sheehan apparently. Probably a couple of guys around here. But most people note the serious difference in offensive talent between the AL East and NL Central, as well as the effect of not pitching in NHRYS.
Part of this is that they don't give their young starters a chance to break in often enough. Ian Kennedy is a prime example. They got really burned on that deal, but people don't notice because Granderson has been pretty good and is hitting a lot of homers; but Austin Jackson was a part of that deal also, and he's been better than Granderson all by himself, even leaving Kennedy out of it, and saying nothing about the huge salary demands the Yankees were forced to take on.
Yes.
Yeah, it's not like Burnett did just fine pitching for the Yankees in 2009, or anything. And I hear that Toronto - where Burnett succeeded for years - plays in the AL East.
Are people serious with this stuff? It would be one thing if they got something worthwhile back for Burnett. But they dumped him with very little in return, and are paying salary to the Pirates to boot. I swear that for all the Yankees good moves, they allow Mike Francesa to make one deal a year for them as part of his contract with YES.
Dumping Burnett was a talk-radio-caller move, and it ought not be defended here by people who really should know better. One would think that being schooled by Kenny Rogers in Tigers uniform in a deciding game in the playoffs would have clued people in to the fact that "can't pitch in New York" or "can't pitch under pressure" is just so much BS as applied to major leaguers.
And it's not like AJ Burnett stopped aging in 2009. His average velocity on his fastball is down 2 mph since then. His HR rate skyrocketed after 2009. His FIP in 2010-2011 was half a run higher than 2009. Are you really trying to argue he was the same pitcher in those years, or that he is now?
Are people serious with this stuff?
Are you serious? I know you make up your mind and never change it on everything, no matter the facts or circumstances, but you really should at least let this one go, or at least stop posting about it.
One would think that being schooled by Kenny Rogers in Tigers uniform in a deciding game in the playoffs would have clued people in to the fact that "can't pitch in New York" or "can't pitch under pressure" is just so much BS as applied to major leaguers.
Of course no one is making that argument here. Have you considered calling into these shows that poison your radio and arguing with them?
Yes, he pitched better 3-6 years ago. But your comment makes it sound like the Yankees were overreacting to a bad month. That's not what happened. Burnett pitched poorly for 65 starts, and the Yankees were looking at a 35 year old whose fastball was 2-3 MPH slower than it had been from 2006-2009.
Or to put it another way, Hiroki Kuroda's salary.
also, #43 is, uh, maybe kinda relevant?
[edited for comprehensibility]
How many ways are posts #42-45 laughably nonsensical? Let's count them:
1. There is no actual cap; the Yankees can go as high as they want in salary; granted there is the luxury tax, but that hasn't seemed to stop them in the past. But let's put that aside.
2. The Yankees dumped Burnett three weeks after getting Kuroda, but the moves could still well have been linked (the Yankees figuring that they would eventually pay someone to take Burnett), so let's put that aside as well.
3. The idea that freeing up salary allowed them to sign Ibanez and Chavez is comical. Chavez's salary is $900K. Ibanez, who has been worthless, has a salary of $1.2M. The idea that the Yankees had to trade Burnett and free up salary to pay these guys a total of $2.1M is absurd. No team would allow $2 million to be the difference between making the playoffs and not. And I don't know why Larry says "complain all you want about Ibanez," as if acknowledging that Ibanez has been horrible negates the problem with Larry's argument, namely, that Ibanez has been horrible.
4. Why are we focusing on the Chavez's? Freeing up salary also "allowed" them to sign Freddy Garcia and trade for Ichiro, both who have been horrible (0.2 WAR and -0.2 WAR for a total of 0).
5. Trades are not really properly analyzed by using this "freeing up money" concept and ignoring the actual deal, as if simply weighing both sides of the actual deal is flawed. The Yankees got screwed here. They owed Burnett $33 million for 2012/2013, and they paid the Pirates $19 million (!) to take him. AROM points out the $13 million that the Yankees "saved," but this brushes aside the fact that they utterly screwed themselves, paying $19 million to have Burnett -- again I reiterate, still with peripherals that had not collapsed -- pitch for the Pirates.
Teams don't have budgets?
They owed Burnett $33 million for 2012/2013, and they paid the Pirates $19 million (!) to take him.
They would have had to pay him anyway, and if they didn't trade him, they would be paying him to continue to suck, which he was doing at an almost unmatched rate his last two years with the Yanks.
again I reiterate, still with peripherals that had not collapsed
His peripherals were lousy, whether or not they "collapsed." 1.98 K/BB ratio, 1.3 HR/9. An approximately ~4.80 FIP (3rd(!) worst among qualifying starters during 2010-2011). Those are terrible peripherals. And his peripherals understate how awful he was since his ERA was much worse than his FIP both years.
Both clubs, though, were locked into a ton of heavy contracts through 2013, and so they tried to fill in their 2012 rosters on the cheap. The Red Sox did a much worse job, committing to starting Daniel Bard and ruining at least one of his arm or brain in the process, while trading away useful pre-arb players to backfill the bullpen. However, the Sox were much closer to the cap, and before the unpleasantness, they were going to have useful money to spend to fix the 2013 roster. (Then everyone crapped the bed at once, and we're looking at a rebuilding year.)
The Yankees, on the other hand, did a reasonably good job of filling a roster on a shoestring. They got about 8 WAR for a little over $20M from their stopgap vets - basically. Hiroki Kuroda's been so good that all the deals in the aggregate grade out as a positive. But they have zero wiggle room for 2013 if they intend to get under the cap. They're playing like a 91-92 win team now, and their players will more likely project to decline than rebound. It'll be interesting to see if the Steinbrenners stick with the plan. (My guess is they definitely will if they win the division, but if they don't, who knows.)
Have we had a Jesus Montero discussion yet? It looks like the Yankees were right he was never going to be a catcher. He's allowed 47 SB in 45 games at a success rate over 80%. He has 6 PB and 18 WP. DRS rates him about -20 for a full season. Basically, he gives back the entire defensive difference between a catcher and a first baseman. He's hit ok (100 OPS+), and there's still hope he can be a good hitter once he's shifted to his natural position at DH. The Yankees could have done better for a return than a kid with an arm injury, but it appears they were right to plan to trade Montero.
The part of the AL East race that has surprised me the most this year is that Nate McLouth has looked like a legitimate MLB player in Baltimore. He seemed totally washed up with the Pirates this spring.
Hasn't the idea that HR aren't at least partially the pitcher's fault been debunked except at Fangraphs?
Unless you're using a new version of xFIP that would account for the fact that Burnett would be pitching half his innings in a park that boosts HRs significantly if he had remained with the Yankees, this is pure nonsense.
Look at Granderson, clearly Detroit did everything they could to get him to hit lefties. Now, I don't know if Kevin Long is just a better hitting coach than anyone in the Tiger organization (or anyone who worked with Granderson, anyway) or if Long just connected with Curtis for some reason or whatever, but having spent the first eight years of his career in the Tiger org, Granderson didn't hit lefties at all. And he spends 18 months or so and (even now) he's hitting lefties better than previously.
So what about the Pirates turned Burnett around? I don't claim to know. Maybe he connected with Ray Searage (the Bucs' PC), maybe being traded made him say \"#### it, I'm doing what works for me and not listening to the coaches" and that helps. Maybe it's some combination of that plus luck, but I don't think it is a fair assumption that changing organizations has no effect on a player, even if it's not the same effect a lot of reporters imagine.
Why should a detailed case need to be made? It's not complicated. Burnett was struggling with giving up HRs. Then he moved from a park where HRs are easier to come by and had less of a problem with giving them up. Burnett had trouble walking guys, and striking them out enough to compensate for it in the AL. Then he moves to the NL and has a 20/2 K/BB ratio against pitchers.
AJ still has reduced velocity and is basically throwing the same pitches the same amount of time. His GB% is up (second best of his career in a full season), he's walking less guys (best of his career in a full season) and his LOB% is up (second best of his career in a full season). That suggests that he's facing hitters that are less capable of punishing him when they make contact.
AJ hasn't pitched that well, after getting smacked around by the Cubs last night, he has a 103 ERA+ in 163 IP. It doesn't take some leap of faith to see how the differences I noted count account for that shift in ERA. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that Burnett still has some starts left and has been terrible lately. His numbers could be worse in three weeks. You may not agree with all that reasoning, but the notion that AJ would be doing worse in for the Yankees is hardly being taken as an article of faith.
Didn't Burnett recently blame the Yankee coaching staff on making him throw certain pitches more often?
Wouldn't surprise me. They basically stuffed change up down his throat last year (career high 9.6% last year, previous high was 3.7%, but he is throwing it 6.8% of the time this year). It was not an effective pitch. But his fastball was so bad that I can understand why the Yanks would try and play up his offspeed repertoire.
None of which is to say the Yankees handled dealing Burnett well, incidentally. They basically put him out on a card table on 161st Street with a sign: FREE, OR BEST OFFER. He didn't have much value, but he had some, albeit mostly in upside, and the Yankees treated him like a complete zero.
I don't think it was that thin. They had CC, Kuroda, Pineda, Hughes, Nova, Garcia, Pettitte, Warren, Mitchell and Phelps. That's ten guys who could conceivably step in and there was hope that one of Betances or Banuelos might be ready later in the season. I mean, sure, Warren and Mitchell aren't great options but they are as good as some of the guys the rest of the division (except maybe Tampa) has run out there.
And I'm not sure they could have kept AJ. When they traded him, there were six healthy guys who were better than him or pitched better than him last year and Pettitte on the way. And I don't think Burnett would have been fine sitting in the bullpen all spring and then getting bumped back when Pettitte came back.
I don't get why Phelps wasn't being stretched out at the beginning of the season.
The Yanks are really terrible when dealing with non-golden boy pitching prospects (not that they are good at dealing with golden boy pitching prospects either). They jerk them around and they are always convinced they aren't actually good enough to start. However, I think Phelps was starting in the minors at the beginning of the season. They then proceeded to make him a one inning reliever and then changed their mind later.
Well, he's at .219/.303/.470 (.773) against lefties this year, after hitting .272/.347/.597 (.944) against them in 2011. He's doing fine against them, but people had predicted that he was now a .950 OPS hitter against lefties, which was flawed. I expected a dropoff against lefties in 2012 though not to the same .650 floor that he had been at previously, and that is close to what's happened.
I do. Player performance fluctuates from year to year, particularly for pitchers. He still had a good strikeout rate, and you should never rush to write that pitcher off or proclaim that he is finished.
Well, it's worth noting that one of his starts was a disaster start where he gave up 12 runs in 2.2 innings. Obviously it counts as a loss, but a team can only lose once per game. Without that start his ERA would be 3.09 instead of 3.68. With a more normal bad game his ERA would be 3.30 or so.
Well, let's just assume he'll have a bad three weeks, since it fits our premise.
If someone else made this point about a player you felt differently about, you would ridicule them.
Well, let's just assume he'll have a bad three weeks, since it fits our premise.
Not assuming anything, I'm just noting the season isn't over and Burnett's slumping. That's plainly written there. This accusation is especially hilarious coming from someone trying to hand waive away a game that actually happened.
I of course _would_ say that. It was quite clear when Ortiz was with the Twins that he was a good player who Tom Kelly was ####### with.
?
I did no such thing. Do you see the part of post 76 where I wrote "With a more normal bad game his ERA would be 3.30 or so."?
Are you confused about the concept that a team can only lose one time no matter how badly its starter performs in that one game? This is widely accepted as valid. It's one of the main pillars of Michael Wolverton's support-neutral pitcher evaluation system.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to be making a frankly bizarre argument that an organization amounts of nothing more than its stadium and uniforms, and that coaches, organizational philosophy, and so on have basically no effect on players. I think that's patently insane, and guys like Ortiz and Granderson are proof of it. So I'd argue that while Burnett might have been better in NY this year then he was in 2010 and '11, the idea that he would be just as good as he's been in Pittsburgh is nuts.
Ortiz ended up in Kelly's doghouse. He was not put in the lineup and left the hell alone. Thus, he was ###### with.
That is essentially my argument, yes. There are exceptions to that (e.g., if they hold him out of the lineup, or place extreme controls on his batting stance or pitch delivery or type), but the gist of it is correct. The vast, vast majority of players would perform just as well (adjusted for park and league) on one team as they would another.
It just doesn't seem that epic. We had two worse collapses just last year.
Plus, it can pretty easily be traced to injury. I highly doubt he'd be fired for it.
Why do you think the $19 million matters as far as the trade goes? Would you think differently about the trade if Burnett was only owed $13 million for 2012/2013 and the Bucs took on his whole salary? Or if he was owed $133 million for 2012/2013 and the Bucs still took on only $13 million?
Sunk costs are sunk.
I don't want to dismiss the psychological aspect of getting out of NY, needing a change of scenery, etc. But you can probably account for most of the difference between 3.50 and 5.00 with those tangible factors.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main