I won't write the Yankees are getting old. I won't write that Marino is finished. I won't write that the Yankees have no pitching. I won't write that Joe Torre will wear out what few good relievers he has. I won't write that A-Rod can't hit in the clutch.
Look, we've all been down this road before. Every year this decade, the Yanks have a slow start and people start drumming up the "Is this the year the Yanks don't make the playoffs?" stories. Followed up with the "The yanks don't have enough pitching and we all know that pitching is what wins" stories. And every year I blindly play along hoping that it is all true. Well, I know better. The Sox could take the next two games and outscore the Yanks 23 - 2 and it wouldn't bury them. Sure one could say if the Yanks didn't have Arod, they would be cozying up to Tampa Bay in the cellar, but the fact is they have a ton of guys hurt and they are still cruising along. If they end up finishing April at .500 Joe Torre might do cartwheels considering the obstacles they have faced.
What about Arod??!? The last guy this hot for this long was Barry Bonds in the World Series. And now we know that he ingested enough steroids, going on a two week chemical bender that would have made Keith Richards proud. He is just a freak, its pretty scary. Will he opt out? Of course he will because name me the last Boras client that doesn't go to Free Agency when given the chance?? How is this guy not playing for the Angels next year?
One last thing I have to mention - Dice-K. Of course the hype has gone to ridiculous levels, but its obvious that the guy can really pitch. He pitches backwards, and will throw any breaking ball in any count. It will be interesting to see if he throws Arod any fastballs. So far his contract (minus posting fee) looks like an absolute steal. Under $9mil per for 6 years for a 26 year old, top of the rotation type guy???? Sign me up.
6 comments:
Well, I'm not one to talk about typos, but...
when I first read this post, and I came across the second sentence, I immediately thought:
"What? Is he coming back? I'll say it - Marino is definitely done. Who's thinking of signing him, the Dolphins?"
Ahhhh - an "a" is missing. I see.
Now Jay, I agree that we can ignore the "Yanks won't make the playoffs" talk. However - those stories that say "The Yanks don't have enough pitching and we all know that pitching is what wins"...
ummm, that's true.
This decade, the Yanks haven't won a World Series. Period. And a lot of that is because they don't have the starting pitching.
I fail to see how this year is any different than last.
Yes, the Yanks will make the playoffs (which, I guess means the AL Wild Card is coming from the East - am I ready to concede that??). But why is this October going to be any different than the past 6 Octobers?
Ok I'll take the bait. When is one of the statheads going to prove the old pitching wins championships adage wrong? Great teams, a component of which is typically very good to great pitching, win championships. That being said it's very possible to compensate for any lack of pitching dominance with excellent hitting, of which the Yanks have plenty. I'm not saying I'd say we're the favorite to win the series, but I'd say we'd have as good as chance as any. Also something tells me that Karstens and Wright won't be starting games 2 and 3. And if they are it probably won't be anywhere near the playoffs.
Why didn't the braves win more with 3 great starters during the '90s? Why didn't the diamondbacks win more than 1 with johnson and schilling? Why didn't the A's troika ever make it to the WS? How the hell did Pavano beat Clemens in the WS? What about John Burkett defeating Andy Pettitte? How did the Marlins defeat Wood, Prior, and Zambrano in '03? There is no way to guarantee a championship, dominant pitching being no exception.
As to your question why is this October going to be any different, well, why was 2001 - 06 any different than 96 - 00? Why did we lose 2 WS and 1 ALCS as opposed to winning 4 WS? Who knows exactly? The last 6 years were very good teams that came up a game or a series short. It's fun to come up with theories as to why those teams didn't succeed, but honestly to presume one has a totally accurate answer as to why one team goes 110-70 and the other goes 108-72 is kind of short sighted. I mean, c'mon the stat genius resorting to the mike lupica school of sports bromides.
Jon:
I will read your comment more closely tomorrow, but your first statement:
That being said it's very possible to compensate for any lack of pitching dominance with excellent hitting,
is wrong.
Exhibit A: The 1994-2001 Cleveland Indians. 0 World Series Titles. A lineup that rivals this year's Yankees. Lack of title directly due to lack of quality pitching.
EZ:
But that's the rub. First off I'm trying to write while watching a guy who gives up 6 get a standing ovation, 4 homers in a row, dustin pedoira make a game saving catch against josh phelps, all the while sean henn becomes our most reliable arm in the penn. I have to admit, while I hate losing in general, and hate losing to the red sox in a way that I can literally feel in my toes for days afterwards, baseball is indisputably the greatest contest ever invented by man.
My point was, everyone says pitching wins titles, and I can get behind the idea of having aces being a pretty good idea in a short series because as we've all seen, damn good pitchers tend to win a lot more often than otherwise less talented guys, but guess what, they do lose, and often to teams with a combination of great hitting and pitching. So yes sometimes offensive powerhouses come up short, but it doesn't make a powerful offense a less viable winning theory than a great staff.
Your Indians were a game or two short in 95, an inning short in 97, and played a tight series to a team that won 114 games in 98. Let's be serious, those were damn good teams that almost won a world series or two. They didn't, but can you say they were a flawed team on the basis of 7 games or so?
I mean were the 01 Yankees a failure because Mariano blew a save? It was essentially the same team as the 3peat team. Shit happens.
What about the braves, 3 of the most dominant starters for a decade and one title. I mean the yanks never had dominant pitching or dominant hitting on their championship teams. What they had was great balance. They had a staff of number 2 level starters that always gave us an advantage in swing game 4's and they had very capable offenses. I just thinking people overstate pitching. Plenty of pitching rich teams have slumped silently out of the playoffs.
Interesting topic here. Great pitching will beat great hitting, but when your own team sacrifices offense and defense for pitching, it never works. It makes no sense why the A's never made it out of the first round of the playoffs with the big three ALONG with Giambi, Tejada, and Chavez. Why did we lose? Oh that's right, we didn't know how to run the bases, we had the poor version of Grady Little in Macha and Howe, and made some defensive blunders. I agree 100% with Jon here in saying that it is more about the team than just having great pitching.
Prime example was this yanks v. sox series. If the Sox only had Schilling, Beckett, and Dice K, they would of lost each game. Each got hit around enough that they needed the Sox offense and defense to help them out. So here, great pitching did not beat a great offense.
You build teams for the regular season and then it is a crap shoot during the playoffs. Period.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in the debate. The fact is that great pitchers do not always pitch to their reputations and sometimes good or decent pitchers, pitch exceptionally and both of these phenomena occasionally occur in the playoffs.
Josh Beckett was practically unhittable in 2003. Jaret Wright (yes, that Jaret Wright) was fantastic for the Indians in 1997. Also, what is forgotten in Mariano's blown save in 2001 is that, had he recorded the save, the losing pitcher in game 7 would have been Curt Schilling who gave up the home run to Soriano.
And even then, a great pitcher can be superb, make one mistake and still lose (Smoltz losing game 5 to Pettitte in 1996). And that would be the same Pettitte that got lit up by Andruw Jones and company in game one. It just seems to me that there are more permutations than everyone is recognizing.
John is right that it is possible to compensate for lack of pitching with exceptional hitting. The fact that the Indiians were unable to do so, does not prove that it is impossible. I think Eric is assuming a causal relationship that may not exist. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just saying that you don't know that it does.
Post a Comment