I meant that the only demonstrable poor stretch of one or two weeks came after the third series. Thus, in only one of three cases could one posit that there was a hangover. The other two cases militated against this position. Overall, therefore, there is not enough evidence to prove that there is any meaningful “hangover effect,” that is to say, a string of subsequent poor games caused by losses to a specific team.

Suffice to to say that if you don’t or didn’t perceive the Yankees lapses after the last two Boston series, we’re just watching for two different things. Btw, listing the Mets series @ Yankee Stadium as some kind of a bounce back series is crazy talk. But for a ridiculous non-play by Castillo they lose two out of three. Even the second game they won was freaky as it was a total meltdown by Johan Santana of all people, and the Yanks went on to lose 4 of 6 to the Nats and Marlins right after.

That’s terrible reasoning, I’m sorry to say. You have posited a hypothetical event of what *should* happen, and since it didn’t, that somehow proves your theory. No! The burden of proof is on you to *prove* the hangover theory, which (as I understand it) is that a loss or few losses to one team somehow has a causal connection to subsequent poor play.

The only evidence you present is a post hoc propter hoc argument. But using the same reasoning, how can we tell that losing to LAA on May 24 didn’t cause the subsequent losses to Boston? Or even that poor play against FLA and ATL led to suprior play during the subsequent winning streak? Or maybe the wins against TB in June cause the losses to Boston that followed.

*Should* the team have won five or seven games after losing to Boston? I have no idea what they should have done.

What’s even more revealing is that the most recent time they got swept they lost to some less than spectacular teams, and were only saved from another loss by a once in a generation misplay by Castillo.

I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just having trouble understanding more than one interpretation of the facts.

I am not being obtuse at all. Moreover, I am open to more than one interpretation of data. I simply do not think that your interpretation of the data in this case stands up to critical analysis. But surely an open-mined, un-obtuse thinker such as your self can see where I am coming from, since there is more than one to interpret data.

I’m just trying to pin down the definition, which went from “a week or two” to “the next game” to “incremental”.

In any case, I simply don’t but the hangover argument because the evidence for it is nothing more than post hoc propter hoc reasoning. Of course, it can’t be disproved either, especially when the definition is so flexible as to fit any set of circumstances.

So, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the point.

We can agree, however, that the Yankees should stop losing all of their games to the Red Sox.

While I like our speed/defense combo of Melky Gardner, the D really is not as good as advertised because Melky continues to take bad routes. I’m not really sure how Brett stands up in that dept. If we had the Rays OF D, we would have won yesterday.

What’s so hard to understand?

The first time they got swept by Boston the after effects were minimal.

The second time they got swept the after effects lasted a week (just as a reminder, the losses to Tampa Bay on May 6th and 7th count).

The third time they got swept the after effects lasted two weeks.

To wit, a week OR two! Why? Probably because the cumulative effects on their psyche were more pronounced with every sweep, especially after their bravado leading up to the third series.

Nothing I posted is counter factual

Evidence? Please, this is baseball banter, not testimony, documentary proof, or other items for which there is a chain of custody.

I think the facts, at least those that are knowable by fans, speak for themselves. They played worse after each successive embarrassment to the Sox, subsequent to the first series when they were able to shake off the sweep after one loss.

If there was no hangover, why didn’t the opposite occur? That is, shouldn’t they have just dusted themselves off and rattled off a five or seven game winning streak?

What’s even more revealing is that the most recent time they got swept they lost to some less than spectacular teams, and were only saved from another loss by a once in a generation misplay by Castillo.

I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just having trouble understanding more than one interpretation of the facts.

For some reason you have an incredibly narrow construction of hangover. You seem unable to assimilate that it can be an incremental process rather than a uniform one.

It’s a stimulus bound world view.

why losing to Boston and then a game to TB was followed by winning 6 of 8.

After dropping the series to Boston and the first game to TB, the lost the next 3 of %. But, choosing different data points, they won 11 of the next 14.