This. Lots and lots of this. I actually thought that someone would give me shit for "expecting" that they Yankees should be kicking ass and taking names, but someone does actually get it. Like you said, they spent all this money to prevent exactly what is happening anyway. In other words, this "spend it all, it'll work out in the end" is bullshit, as it has been across the entire decade.
Money obviously leads to altered expectations. There's nothing that can be done about that, I guess. But that has little to do with the point: You don't judge a season (or a player) on a small sample size, regardless of how much money is being paid to whomever. These things even out over the course of the year, and players (and teams) tend to perform to career levels commensurate with their skill level, give or take a bit for variation. Or, to put it another way, your post makes the same incorrect assumption that all the others have made, which is that we will continue to see a .500 team for the rest of the season. This is just absurd. Not because they will or won't necessarily be a .500 team, but because it's beyond ridiculous to make these claims about a team or player based on a small amount of data. People have taken one week of shitty baseball, lumped it in with a couple of stinkers played earlier in the year, and are jumping to conclusions that ignore a much bigger picture. (ETA: And why are they doing this? Mostly because OMG THEY GOT SWEPT BY TEH RED SOX!! Never mind that in the fickle game of baseball, two of those three games could have easily gone the other way. They didn't, obviously, and so people see a 9-10 record at the end of a rough April and freak out.) If you're a Yankee fan, you're obviously not happy with the way things have gone the past week. It's been pretty shitty. But come see me after May, when the Yanks have had A-Rod back in the lineup, have played a ton of games at home, and have had a fair number of off days in there. We'll have a better idea about this team at that point.
Its still early but the bullpen and the lack of hitting with risp is a big concern. Bullpen problem can be fixed if Melacon steps up or Joba is moved to the pen. But they could not hit all last year with risp and its been even worse this year. I dont have much reason to believe its not going to be a problem all year.
And what if, like last year, they're still stranding lots of runners on base, even with ARod (since they were doing that last year too?) The point is, this isn't a small sample size. It's just a small sample size for the past few weeks. This is the same team we watched do the same thing last year. And the year before. Hell, the past few years. The faces change, the story doesn't.
What Cappy is likely to say (I don't know for sure, but this is generally the argument you get from stats guys) is that hitting with RISP is not a repeatable skill. While I agree with a LOT of the stat guy stuff, this is one thing that I think is absolutely wrong. There is a huge mental part to the game, both when hitting and pitching. Certain players deal with pressure better than other players. Whether that means trying too hard to hit the corner when pitching with the bases loaded and missing wide or trying to hit it out of the park and popping up instead, the mental aspect of the game absolutely adds a dimension of "clutch".
Im not supposed to get concerned in April or May butt hats exactly when the Yankee season ended last year. We'r eon our way to diggin a nice fat hole for ourselves again this year....in 2 weeks we may be 8 behind Boston
I agree with a lot of the "stat guy arguments" as well. For the most part, they're correct. As Cappy will say, stats will level out, such as average, OBP, etc. But like you said, "clutch" exists. I equate it to stage fright. Any schmuck can act, but only some can "perform." The pressure of an audience can turn a great actor to jelly, just like the pressure of needing to drive in a run can turn a great ballplayer into a strikeout king.
Phil franchise tonight. Im all psyched. Wont watch a single inning tonight though since the Rangers are on
But this is what people who like to talk about "clutch" never seem to get: You can't measure it. And without that, it's pretty meaningless to claim it definitely exists. Especially given what we do know, the rather shitty job human brains do of processing this kind of information over numerous games separated by long periods of time. I'm not sure why people want to give weight to it, other than the human drama element. It's like people who believe in the healing power of prayer. Okay, sure, it might exist... but you know what? I'm not going to forgo actual medical treatment because of it. And that's what some of the clutch supporters seem to say quite often. "We need 'clutch' guys!" No, we need guys who are good at hitting the baseball. If you get a lot of runners on base, you will score more runs. Because basically what you're telling me is that guys who have already proven themselves to be the best of the best at what they do (they wouldn't be in the majors if they weren't), guys who have played in front of tens of thousands of people every night (Florida and Pittsburgh exlcuded) for years, get nervous enough to "choke" when there's a guy on second base... to the point that it makes a noticeable difference in their skills. And that the amount of pressure they feel changes from year to year. They get nervous one year and choke, but not the next and are clutch. Sure. Maybe. But it seems more likely that people are making inaccurate judgments with their eyes and memory and that RISP should wind up being close to the team's batting average by the end of the year (leaving room for some variation, of course). And that any individual player's batting average with RISP will be close to his career batting average at the end of the season (again, leaving room for some variation). In case you don't believe me... link
You can talk all the stats you want Cappy, but honestly, (and I even know better) it sounds like you've never played a day of sports in your life. Have you never been in a pressure situation, where you needed to get a hit to tie the game in the bottom of the ninth? Where you needed to throw a strike in a 3-2 count with the bases loaded in a tie game? It's different than hitting with a runner on third, no one out, top of the second. It's different than first and second, two out, up 6 in the fifth. If it's not different for you, then congratulations, your name is Derek Jeter. Was Jessica Biel good? I get that statistics will "average out" over the course of a season. There are 162 games to do that. As long as you increase the number of chances, you bring the chances of hitting the middle closer. If ARod plays in 6 more postseasons, eventually, he's going to drive in a shitton of runs. Why? Because he's one of the best hitters in the game, and eventually, he has to hit in a situation where his swing doesn't matter. How many games will he actually win with his bat though? Yes, the Yankees will all eventually get their RBI numbers to expected levels. How many of those RBI will come against Baltimore, or Texas, or in interleague against Washington or Colorado? And how many will come against the Rays, Jays, and Sox? Timeliness matters.
She was alright. But you're missing the point. Yes, there are pressure situations. What you are discounting is that the players in the major leagues are the best of the best of the best of the best in the sport. They have been in "pressure" situations over and over and over again. And they have succeeded at a sufficient level to advance from high school to college to the minors and eventually make it to the majors. And they have played in front of tens of thousands of people, in pressure and non-pressure situations countless times (as non-pressure as playing in front of tens of thousands of people can be, anyway). And despite all of this pressure, their stats in clutch situations are still more attributable to variance than anything else. Read that link I posted, if you already haven't. Yes. Timeliness matters... in terms of any particular game. But it has no (or very little) predictive value, though. You are only placing that meaning after the fact. The Yanks scored 11 runs against one of the (supposedly) best pitchers in the game on Saturday. Eleven runs! And how many of them were to take or re-take the lead? But Burnett and the bullpen coughed up those leads several times over... so you look back at that game and say, "Boy they choked when it counted!" It doesn't work like that. Here... as an example, these are the team splits for the Yanks last year: Code: Opponent Split W L RS RA WP BAL 11 7 91 88 .611 BOS 9 9 93 93 .500 CHW 5 2 41 27 .714 CIN 1 2 6 11 .333 CLE 3 4 22 23 .429 DET 2 4 33 37 .333 HOU 3 0 23 5 1.000 KCR 5 5 50 41 .500 LAA 3 7 50 66 .300 MIN 6 4 55 43 .600 NYM 2 4 25 38 .333 OAK 5 1 24 15 .833 PIT 1 2 17 16 .333 SDP 3 0 18 6 1.000 SEA 7 2 60 29 .778 TBR 11 7 76 75 .611 TEX 3 4 40 32 .429 TOR 9 9 65 82 .500 It evens out. It really does. Look at Boston and Toronto. Or the Rays. It might not determine who wins the individual games or when the runs are scored, but some "clutchiness" factor is not going to tell you about when it's going to happen, either. What you DO see here is that the Yanks lost against a bunch of the shittier teams like Texas, Detroit, Pitt, and Cincy. The were 11-7 against the team that won the AL East. The point is, there are pressure situations, yes. But baseball skill is a far better indicator of future performance (in pressure situations or not) than some internal quality. This is not really debatable.
I'm not trying to contend otherwise. Natural talent trumps luck, circumstance, and practically anything short of being hit with a metorite. The point is, and it gets twisted in this conversation because we wind up arguing apples and oranges since they're both fruit, that the Yankees leave too many men on base. You can't factor pitching into the conversation, otherwise it changes the entire argument. Yes, our pitching failed against the Sox. There's no denying that. The point is, however, that the pitching should never have been a factor in the first place. The Yankees stranded almost 20 runners in scoring position. When you leave that many runs on the bases, you deserve to lose, no matter what your pitching does. Again, yes, the numbers will even out. I don't dispute that in any way. The point I continue to try to make, however, is that the way this team is playing teams like the Sox, it will be home on the couch before the last pitch is thrown in November. That's based on recent history, and perception-based reasoning. Is that infallible? Of course not. There's certainly a good possibility that in November I could be saying, "Wow, I was so wrong!" and nothing short of a Jets Super Bowl win would make me a happier sports fan. I just don't see it happening. It's great that last year they beat up on KC, Oakland, and Seattle. It's more telling that they got outscored by the Angels, Rays, and broke even with the Sox. They have to beat up on the weaker teams. Had they not, you can be pretty sure Girardi wouldn't have had a second season in pinstripes. But when the weather starts cooling off again, they have to be able to beat the teams that will continue playing after September ends. As much as I disliked Torre, he said something (I think the quote was in that book of his) that rings true. He told Cashman something along the lines of "Remember the human element of the game." (I don't recall the exact phrase.) Anyway, it's true. Looking solely at statistics and basing the composition of your team on that is a great way to get a team full of All-Stars. Notice the Yankees do that year-after-year and don't win? Notice the American team has done it twice in the WBC? The Japanese were highly praised for their teamwork, something the American team was not credited with. Billy Beane may be a "genius" but when was the last time Oakland won a World Series title?
Who else remembers the good old days when bullshitting about baseball games was even more fun than doing quadratic equations?
Dude, people say free agency destroyed baseball? The invention of 4,000 stats ruined baseball. Remember the good ole days of HR RBI and AVG? Thats all you needed. That and watching the games.
If you have a lot of men on base, you are going to leave a lot of men on base. This completely misses the point. If the pitching didn't "fail," you wouldn't be complaining about the number of runners left on base. They would've won in a blowout (and then I'm sure we'd be hearing about how they only score when it doesn't matter). And the point that I have continually tried to make to respond is that you don't look at "the way they're playing the Sox" as a judge of anything. That was three games. If they continue to play like they played those three games, uh... I guess that would suck. But I see no reason to think that. And there's really no reason for anyone else to think that, except that those were the most recent games that had been played against them. What are you talking about? They beat the Rays, 11 games to 7 (and outscored them by a run, as well). First of all, those are horrible comparisons. The Yanks have put a very good team on the field every year. They made it to the postseason every year except last year (and Tampa Bay had as much to do with that as the injuries the Yanks suffered). The postseason is mostly a crapshoot, but strong pitching helps. A lot. That is what the Yanks lacked. Not "heart." Not "character." Gee, the way Torre talked about everyone having a belly full of guts, you would've thought the Yanks should have won twelve World Series in a row. I guess he was mistaken. Or maybe other teams had bellies even MORE full of guts. And as for the WBC, it's pretty obvious the Americans don't care about it. We don't send our best players, and when we do, they go under strict orders not to overdo it and risk their season. Matsuzaka's heart and character and passion and teamwork put him on the DL. I understand the frustration when the Yankees don't win. I also understand the desire to look for reasons for these failures. I just don't understand why people reach for things that they do. Reminds me of a favorite quote: "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
