That's a fair point but it doesn't really relate to the discussion that's going on here. People are essentially saying if the Yanks put inferior hitters in the lineup it would've performed better. Why would you assume that worse hitters are better able to deal with this phenomenon then some of the best in the league?
That has to do with your definition of a good hitter is weighted to the power stats. The way you look at it, Sheffield is a better hitter than O'neill, Giambi is a better hitter than Tino, etc. It's not quite simply better hitting, it's more of having the players that do the things well to contribute to winning the short series. That includes moving runners over, hit and runs, sacraficing yourself, going first to third, stealing a base. So I don't think the point is that worse hitters perform better. It's just that we wish the Yankees brought hitters that played a better and more consistant style.
wasn't Brociius World Series MVP in 98? maybe I am wrong. but even better pitching wouldn't have scored more runs for this years team...pitchers don't hit in the AL, so there is something fundamentally flawed in the construction of the Yankees line-up. whoa, nobody is saying anything about inferior hitters. that is quite a stretch to equate different type of hitter with inferior. that's the same mistake the Yankees are making nowadays, going after the slugger who puts up big power and RBI numbers, when they had a great run with guys who hit for average and were able to manufacture runs regardless of the situation.
See, you don't understand the discussion. It's not about putting inferior talent in the lineup, it's about putting the proper players into situations where they can be successful. The Yankee lineup was all-or-nothing in the post-season. Either they hit homers, or they sit down. You have to have baserunners. You have to have the pitcher thinking about the guy on first. If you don't he gets to concentrate on the hitter exclusively, and 9/10 times, the pitcher wins that battle. Besides, you see them as "worse" because they don't fit into your idea of an ideal player. You see their value as a number like OPS. Did OPS help Aaron Boone single-handedly beat the Red Sox? Did OPS do it for Bucky Dent?
So because the Yankees have so many great hitters that know, and the manager knows that it would be ridiculous to ask them to sac bunt or just try to move the runner over they end up scoring less runs? I don't buy it, but it's an interesting idea.
how often do you have your clean up hitter bunt when you know he is capable of cranking a double or a HR? not often. when you have a line-up of clean up hitters, who do you have bunt when you not only expect those players to hit to move players over and score but are paying them to do so, regardless of whether they are hitting 3,4 or 8th. that is the flaw in the Yankee line-up.
I read the argument and you argued it well. The thing that these playoff series have created is real matchup baseball. It is different than the regular season where % over time overwhelmingly win out. Matchup baseball doesn't rely on % over a long season, it's based on probabiltiy based on a current situation. Maybe the Yankees were just not lucky and they were in a team slump? Maybe this team with the exact makeup wins 3 out of 10 times in the post season? I think your argument is valid but I also think it's a mistake to look at stats over a long season and presume that they will hold up in a short series. Whether a different kind of player increases the odds of winning in a short series is an interesting argument. What can't be argued is that good pitching, good defense, and team speed is by far more consistent on a day in and day out basis than good hitting.
Look at the overall team batting stats from the dynasty years, the AVG/OBP numbers are very similar to this years team and the slugging is a fair amount lower(except for the 114 win year). They don't have "all or nothing guys" they have power hitters who get on base alot. What did the "average guy" Cano do this series? Absolutely nothing. When the entire team slumps like that you're going to lose, no way around it.
Well, the point is that the way to go about it is to not overload your lineup with those kind of hitters. I've maintained that the Yankees had the perfect opportunity to learn from their past mistakes, and play the players who actually won the division for them (Melky, Bernie), who did everything the team could possibly ask for, and more, and provided the dimension that the team didn't have beforehand. You can't ask sheffield to sac bunt. He tries to hit the ball 450 feet everytime. The percentages of having that happen is far less than hitting a double in the gap that melky would potentially be able to. There are enough guys that try doing that, but the Yankees ignore having a second or third dimension to their approach.
but how were those averages obtained? it is fair to say that this years Yankees average were products of a lot of power hitting. a HR affects your average the same as a single, so the averages while comperable in numbers are not the same.
I'm with you in regards to the pitching, as one great individual effort can turn the tide of a postseason series. As far as consistency goes with speed and defense you're probably correct, although I would argue that good hitting is still more valuable, as even 1 game with good hitting is more likely to effect the outcome of a game then 3 games with good speed and defense. Also, I'm not saying that overall numbers are always going to be the "correct" move. We see this all season long where once in awhile the "wrong" move ends up working. But if you've got a batter at the plate hitting .105 against lefties all year, and you bring in a lefty and the guy at the plate beats you, you tip your cap. Realistically how you could you make any other decision in that spot? You put your players in the best position to succeed and hope it works out, that's playoff baseball.
I'm not arguing that speed and D is more important than hitting over time, but if you're going up against a good pitcher and your big slow crappy fielding bopper strikes out 4 times, a guy who can field and run and maybe make contact 3 times can do more to help you win in that situation. That's a stituation that plays out more in the post season, especially in the 3 of 5 format.
I don't understand the question. Looking at the WS winning years with the exception of 96 the HR totals each of the other 3 years were comparable to the HR totals this year. 96 - 162 98 - 207 99 - 193 00 - 205 06 - 210
I'll agree up to a point. It's hard to speak in generalities so I'll use specific player examples. While I might prefer a guy like Endy Chavez over a fringe player like Shawn Green or Cliff Floyd, their offensive numbers are comparable, while Chavez has the massive advantage in speed and D. That's a far cry from saying that the Yankees would be better off with Scott Brosius rather then A-Rod or the like. I mean, if a guy can't hit, he can't hit. Make Chris Woodward a GG fielder with Reyes speed and I still wouldn't want to see him in the lineup, certainly not over an All Star player.
A-Rod is about the most proven post season commodity in baseball. I would pinch hit Brocius for him in any big post season situation with a runner in scoring position. I have to believe the stats back it up.
Brosius has the better RBI rate in the postseason, 1 every 6.5 AB's compared to A-Rod's 1 ever 8.25 AB's but A-Rod beats him out in RS, with 1 every 6.9 AB's to 1 every 10.3 AB's for Brosius. A-Rod's overall postseason numbers are also better then Brosius' but of course in recent history(see junc's sig) A-Rod has been about as bad as it gets.
NY is just too much for Arod. How else do you explain his flop since he's been here. Unfortunately for him,the second he screws up anywhere else,he'll be booed.
That's where your argument is flawed, and now I realize it's not your fault. You're forgetting. The lineup for the vast majority of the year was as follows: Damon CF Jeter SS Giambi 1B/Abreu RF ARod 3B Giambi 1B-DH/Posada C Cano 2B/Posada C Williams RF-DH/Cano 2B Cano 2B/Fill-in player (Guile, Wilson, etc.) Cabrera LF It was significantly more balanced all year. That lineup that looks like: Damon CF Jeter SS Abreu RF Sheffield 1B Giambi DH Matsui LF Posada C ARod 3B Cano 2B did not come about until the final 6 games of the regular season, against Baltimore, and Toronto. That lineup is not even close to the one that had the OPS or any other statistic of the regular season. Matsui and Sheff were on the shelf for over 4.5 months. They had not contributed to any part of the team's success, and surely not to the team's overall offensive prowess.
Well if you want to make the argument that Sheff and Matsui were not healthy and/or not ready to play then that's one thing but based on the last couple of years Sheff is a .290/.390 and Matsui is a .300/.370 which is better then the guys they were replacing in the AVG/OBP department. There's no reason to think the lineup would suffer if both of these guys came back.
