Comments on: Ain’t No Party Like a Scranton Party

By: Raf

Raf — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:47:12 +0000

[25] He admitted it in December

By: a.O

a.O — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:20:18 +0000

LOL, indeed.

Hey, weird article on ESPN this morning quoting Cashman as saying that his meeting with Carl Crawford’s agent last winter was an elaborate ruse to drive up the price for Boston. Why the hell would you admit that in public?

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:03:33 +0000

Every time I think about relying on the lineup I think of 2006 and watching Kenny Rogers and Jeremy Bonderman look like Koufax and Drysdale.

That murdered the rational person in me when it comes to this stuff.

By: a.O

a.O — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:54:14 +0000

[21] I guess a short, confidence-building outing is the best/only medicine. I’m hopeful that those two will step up in the playoffs. They seemed to be pitching like they had something to prove this year and as veterans I think that mindset will extend into the postseason. Fingers crossed anyway.

[22] Our lineup could knock the crap out of any of those guys, but what I see from guys like Tex, Swish, and Robbie when the playoffs come around is they get nothing but junk and swing at everything and consequently provide very little offense (sometimes).

By: RIYank

RIYank — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:37:27 +0000

I guess that’s right, we’d need a small handful of pretty good games out of Colon and Garcia, between them. Either that or win a couple of those games 9-6, which isn’t far-fetched when you think about which pitchers would be up against them. I mean, you think our line-up couldn’t knock out double digits against, say, Wakefield and the Boston relief corps? Against Brad Penny?

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:37:14 +0000

[20] i would let them throw another game, hope they had early success, and then yanks them quickly so they don’t push themselves and have a shot of confidence. but there’s not much they can do.

By: a.O

a.O — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:32:28 +0000

I would agree with that, Jon. Freddy and Bart seem to have worn down considerably in the 2d half. So, here’s my question for yallz: Is it possible to do anything between now and Game 3/4 of the ALDS — when these guys who will presumably pitch — to get them “fresh” again? Or is it inevitable that we will see the same tired, weak sauce from these guys? I don’t think it’s overstating this to say that our (post)season may depend on it.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:25:36 +0000

[18] i don’t think that highly of colon and garcia, but if they pitch decent games, the yanks are going to be in great shape.

for very old guys who have not been good in a long time, i think their recent slides are likely the result of wearing down and not being any good any more. hopefully, it’s just the natural ebb and flow ofthe season, but with them, i am inclined to read more into it than that.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:20:33 +0000

[15] Yes, I think it’s pretty clear that teams don’t win the World Series wheeling out “starting pitching that gets creamed most of the time.” But teams don’t finish the season with the best record in the American League with “starting pitching that gets creamed most of the time”, either. The Yankees are going to have starters with the following ERA+:

110
117
122
147

(I am assuming that Hughes and Burnett will not be in the post-season rotation.)
That’s not a crew who gets creamed most of the time. And I’ll stack them up against anybody’s starters except the Phillies’.

By: a.O

a.O — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:11:20 +0000

[16] Maybe, but we don’t live in the Platonic world of ideals. Injuries are part of the game. That’s why team depth is important. Makes me think how many Yanks have stepped into gaps this year, like our Rookie of the Year.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:34:34 +0000

[14] Better by a wide margin when healthy. Weren’t they up 9.5 games on the rays when the Sox were healthy?

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:33:30 +0000

[13] well, i know any team can win good enough hitting and decent enough pitching, but i doubt any team ever wins with pitching that performs really badly, with starting pitching that gets creamed most of the time.

all the yanks can do is have guys on the roster who are likely to perform well and then hope it works out. the yanks had all the right guys in 2002, and they got rocked and lost. this year, i don’t think they have the right guys.

if they perform well enough to win, that would be awesome, but it would seem kind of like an accident to me.

By: a.O

a.O — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:33:18 +0000

Good discussion. My only thought is that if the Sux were the better team “by a wide margin” then the margin would be wider than 2 games. Great post in the PB yesterday about how all the pundits were WRONG about the Sux this year. When will the Boston worship end?

By: RIYank

RIYank — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:14:48 +0000

[12] Hmmmm. Just out of curiosity, why would you think that other teams might win the WS without top-level pitching, but the Yankees can’t? That seems like a weird hypothesis.

Nova doesn’t have to be as a good a pitcher as Andy Pettitte. My thought was really just that he could be about as good as Andy was in 2009. For the regular season, Nova was quite a bit better this year than Andy was in ’09. Of course, Pettitte had that superb Division Series performance, but he really wasn’t great in the WS. (I hope to god that Weeping isn’t reading this. Sacrilege!)

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:03:50 +0000

[11] My point was slightly different, i was just talking about the yanks. It seems to me that in making the playoffs every year since 1995 but 2008, the times they won it all, or at least went to the series they had good performances from starters.

and if ivan nova can be as good as andy pettitte, wow, just wow, i will be so stoked about that. i’ve really grown to like the guy and absolutely think he’s the second best pitcher on this team, but if he becomes something like andy pettitte, that would blow me away.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:53:33 +0000

[10] Obviously, it’s always good to have everything.
As you say, the Yankees won in 2009 by having great hitting and one really good pitcher, with a couple of others stepping up. That sounds a whole lot like this team. Nova for Pettitte, say, and one of the other guys for AJ.

In 2008 the Phillies had good pitching, but their bats were their strongest point. (I think the current Yankees are in this category.)

The 2010 Giants got through with their pitchers, plainly.
The 2007 Red Sox had both.
The 2006 Cardinals and 2005 White Sox were mediocre teams who got hot.

I don’t feel like checking every champ since 1995, but my bet is you’ll find that Good Hitting and Good Pitching come out about equally important.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:33:29 +0000

[7] for the postseason, i like to have everything. the braves had the strongest starters and it didn’t serve them as well as the balanced yanks. the yanks from 04-08 had excellent hitting and weak pitching, and that was their worst stretch.

having everything means you can win in multiple fashions. once day the lineup may carry you, one day the starter has to deliver 7 shoutout innings, etc…

burnett, colon, hughes, and garcia have allowed 6.07 r/9 since the all star break. i can’t believe they will put out a good game in the playoffs, and that will require to the yanks to hit every time they pitch. i don’t want to rely on that.

though it’s not definitive in any way, can you think of one time since 1995 when the yanks have won a world series without good starting pitching? can you think of a time since 1995 when the yanks won any individual series without good starting pitching? of course the 2009 team didn’t have a good rotation, but that year they sent CC out on short rest to make up for it, and andy and AJ came up big when needed.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:25:08 +0000

[8] Indeed.
But they’re almost cooked.

By: Will Weiss

Will Weiss — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:12:14 +0000

[6] Laying in the weeds … the Angels. No self-respecting Yankee fan wants to face them.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:10:58 +0000

[3] [4] Well, if you just look at the whole season, the Rays and Sox are very nearly equal teams. So it depends on which Small Sample Size you think is more important. If it’s the games the teams played against the Yankees, then plainly Boston is more dangerous to us. If it’s September, then the Rays are way more dangerous.
If you discount Small Samples (as I do), then there’s one other bias that matters, and that’s the Good Pitching factor. Some people think Good Pitching becomes much more important in the post-season (you seem to be one of those, Jon!). And in that case, the Rays are by far the bigger threat. Price, Hellickson, Shields, way more scary than Beckett, Lester, Lackey. Not close!

Good point about the prospective pain of losing, though. Yuck. Okay, let’s give the Red Sox our best games and lay it down against Tampa.