Is this the last of the Yankees?

[Demetrios37]

Digress all you like. I agree completely. It's all been smoke and mirrors. No manager has pulled more rabbits out of their hat than him, though I'd still personally vote Maddon as ALMOY, since it appears that the Yankees are destined to finish under .500. If Girardi had kept them in the WC race until September, he would have been the only reasonable choice for the award, but that's just not going to happen.

Of course you agree completely, you're objectivity is blinded by Yankees homerism.

I'll won't even point out the blatant contradiction you made in your first 2 sentences because you're probably suffering from PTSD over the prospects of a Yankees team with a record under .500.

 

[Chef99]

Really? You're kidding right? Are you aware they are in 4th place and 11.5 games out of first?

Bro, I ain't gonna continue to stick up for a Yankee, but John McGraw couldn't have done a better job with that team than Girardi has done.

That said, if they end up dead last it's all good with me!

 

[Demetrios37]

No, in fact, the Yankees often get the better of the season series, or at least tie.

It's the post-season where the Tigers have their number.

That's what he meant

 

[rokketmn]

I don't understand why you chose this time frame in the first place...if you're seeking to discredit the Yankee championships, why would you include 1995 (when they didn't win) and not include 2000 (when the did win)? Maybe because it doesn't suit your argument since Toronto and Chicago both finished over .500 in 2000?

Why is it that when people are losing an argument or don't have the comprehension to make one always seem to find little things in a post that they can twist to try to deflect from the main topic? They are like the defense attorney that knows their client is guilty as hell, yet they try to get him off on a technicality.

I starter with 1995 because that was when the Yankees reign really started. Even though they didn't win in 1995, it was their first post-season in a while and helped catapult them to where they would be. I ended with 1999 only because it was the end of the decade. Everyone knows the Yanks won in 2000.

And as mentioned, you there doesn't need to be "consistent winners" for there to be competition. That's an artificial argument you're making up to try to discredit the Yankees anyway you can.

Really? Consistent winning shows the mark of a truly good team and not one that just happened to have a lucky season. Maybe because every one else was so bad. It doesn't matter. The Yankees were a very experienced team, and experienced at winning. Of course there is no factual evidence of this, but the Yankees probably won half their games on intimidation. The other team almost expected to lose. It certainly was the case with Mariano Rivera. Teams seemed to wave to white flag when he came in because you really had to earn it against him.

So Jimmy Key pitching 5 1/3 innings and giving up a run in a decidig WS game was somehow not good or lucky? Again, it doesn't matter. It was never a point of mine. it was brought up because you objected to me mentioning his name with the other Yankees pitchers.

If you really watched the World Series in 2009, you would have seen that Ryan Howard was a big part of the reason the Phillies lost. He had an awful series and seemed to K in every crucial situation. Though they had other good players, he was their cleanup hitter and failed to deliver. The Yankee pitchers, and Pettitte in particular were the reason for it.

As for Nagy...Yes, won-loss record is certainly not the best indicator of a pitcher, but Nagy WAS the Indians best pitcher. He started their big games if they had a chance to set their rotation. If you can't see that, I don't know if there is any other way to explain it to you other than with crayons and lots of pretty colors and smiley faces in the sun.

Please come up with a legitimate argument. What are you going to critique next? My spelling and grammar?

The bottom line is that the AL was weak in the late '90's. There was nobody to step up and challenge the Yankees on a consistent basis. Once again, look at how the AL is constructed now, and baseball in general, to see the difference between the eras. There are few "one shot deals" in the AL, as teams have drafted better and had their teams mature together, building consistent winners.

Please stop wasting my time with petty observances of Jimmy Key and Dwight Gooden, while ignoring El Duque, Pettitte, Cone, Wells, and Clemens. Or trying to deflect that Nagy was the Indians best pitcher by saying W/L aren't important. Is it really important when the main point of the original statement is that nobody could match the Yankees pitching? You try to create a side argument while ignoring the main argument.

 

[Logicallylethal]

Yankees and Lakers are in a very similar situation right now. The age and salaries on their roster have finally caught up to them.

So yes it is more than likely the end of THIS run...but this is the Yankees and Lakers we're talking about...they will eventually reload and bounce back (whether we like it or not lol)

 

[cezero]

The only reason I'm happy that a fraud didn't get banned for life is because the yank$ don't get salary relief.

They're pretty insistent that they're going to cap their salary for the next several years to avoid the luxury tax. A fraud getting permanently banned would have given them a lot more payroll to work with.

If the yank$ go hard core into rebuilding, they'll be right back contending regularly in the next 5 years or so.

Yank$ fans of the 2000s are even bigger whining self-entitled bitches now than they have ever been, so it's going to be delightful to see them go through this process.

 

[$500 Million]

I don't understand why you chose this time frame in the first place...if you're seeking to discredit the Yankee championships, why would you include 1995 (when they didn't win) and not include 2000 (when the did win)? Maybe because it doesn't suit your argument since Toronto and Chicago both finished over .500 in 2000?

Why is it that when people are losing an argument or don't have the comprehension to make one always seem to find little things in a post that they can twist to try to deflect from the main topic? They are like the defense attorney that knows their client is guilty as hell, yet they try to get him off on a technicality.

I starter with 1995 because that was when the Yankees reign really started. Even though they didn't win in 1995, it was their first post-season in a while and helped catapult them to where they would be. I ended with 1999 only because it was the end of the decade. Everyone knows the Yanks won in 2000.

And as mentioned, you there doesn't need to be "consistent winners" for there to be competition. That's an artificial argument you're making up to try to discredit the Yankees anyway you can.

Really? Consistent winning shows the mark of a truly good team and not one that just happened to have a lucky season. Maybe because every one else was so bad. It doesn't matter. The Yankees were a very experienced team, and experienced at winning. Of course there is no factual evidence of this, but the Yankees probably won half their games on intimidation. The other team almost expected to lose. It certainly was the case with Mariano Rivera. Teams seemed to wave to white flag when he came in because you really had to earn it against him.

So Jimmy Key pitching 5 1/3 innings and giving up a run in a decidig WS game was somehow not good or lucky? Again, it doesn't matter. It was never a point of mine. it was brought up because you objected to me mentioning his name with the other Yankees pitchers.

If you really watched the World Series in 2009, you would have seen that Ryan Howard was a big part of the reason the Phillies lost. He had an awful series and seemed to K in every crucial situation. Though they had other good players, he was their cleanup hitter and failed to deliver. The Yankee pitchers, and Pettitte in particular were the reason for it.

As for Nagy...Yes, won-loss record is certainly not the best indicator of a pitcher, but Nagy WAS the Indians best pitcher. He started their big games if they had a chance to set their rotation. If you can't see that, I don't know if there is any other way to explain it to you other than with crayons and lots of pretty colors and smiley faces in the sun.

Please come up with a legitimate argument. What are you going to critique next? My spelling and grammar?

The bottom line is that the AL was weak in the late '90's. There was nobody to step up and challenge the Yankees on a consistent basis. Once again, look at how the AL is constructed now, and baseball in general, to see the difference between the eras. There are few "one shot deals" in the AL, as teams have drafted better and had their teams mature together, building consistent winners.

Please stop wasting my time with petty observances of Jimmy Key and Dwight Gooden, while ignoring El Duque, Pettitte, Cone, Wells, and Clemens. Or trying to deflect that Nagy was the Indians best pitcher by saying W/L aren't important. Is it really important when the main point of the original statement is that nobody could match the Yankees pitching? You try to create a side argument while ignoring the main argument.

So in the mind of this front running ass clown, the 2013 Red Sox are probably better than the 1998 Yankees.

Keep jerking yourself off pal.

 

[rokketmn]

Keep jerking yourself off pal.

As much as I try, it's just too hard to type with 1 hand. Then with the checks on Baseball reference, it's just not feasible? Tell me your secret.

Just stop the crying and petty insults. So what if the Mets are the better N.Y. team?

Matt Harvey even dates better women than Jeter can ever dream of. Anne V vs. Minka Kelly? The kids just a rook, and he already won that contest. Word is that Jeter only dates those B list actresses and models because his ego can't take anybody being more popular than he is.

 

[rokketmn]

Why did you have to copy and paste my entire post? You're just wasting space. Oh...now I get it!

 

[StanMarsh51]

As for Nagy...Yes, won-loss record is certainly not the best indicator of a pitcher, but Nagy WAS the Indians best pitcher. He started their big games if they had a chance to set their rotation. If you can't see that, I don't know if there is any other way to explain it to you other than with crayons and lots of pretty colors and smiley faces in the sun.

Before I argue the other points (which I will in due time), I want to argue this silly logic on Nagy so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, and how it compares to the always ridiculous Jack Morris argument

If you're going to claim that Nagy was their best pitcher, let's do a year-by-year analysis of where he ranked:

1995 - Nagy was the 3rd best pitcher on the staff, behind Martinez and Hershiser
1996 - Nagy had a great season and was the best pitcher on the staff
1997 - Nagy was barely the best pitcher on the staff over Hershiser
1998 - Nagy was the 3rd best pitcher behind Colon and Burba
1999 - Nagy was the 3rd best pitcher on the staff behind Colon and Burba
2000 - Nagy was the 6th best pitcher on the staff....hey, if you're going to selectively nitpick a time frame to suit your argument, so can I

So, Nagy was NOT better than Colon..you just think he was better because he pitched longer, thus accumulating more wins. It's the same argument that Jack Morris fanboys use when claiming he was the best pitcher in the 1980s because he had the most wins, when in reality the two best pitchers of the 1980s (Clemens and Gooden) pitch the full decade hence don't have the wins.

So Colon was better than Nagy during that time frame even though he didn't pitch throughout the entire time frame, just like Clemens and Gooden were better than Morris in the 1980s even though they didn't pitch throughout the entire time frame

So, do you plan on also making the bold claim that Jack Morris was better than Clemens and Gooden in the 1980s? You must think that if you also plan on thinking that Nagy was better than Colon.

 

[rokketmn]

You found your crayons. Congratulations. It's a bit late for you to be up though, Sparky.

Get back to point. Who was going to beat the Yankees in the late '90's?

 

[StanMarsh51]

You found your crayons. Congratulations. It's a bit late for you to be up though, Sparky.

Get back to point. Who was going to beat the Yankees in the late '90's?

Translation: 'I can't make an effective counterargument.'

The point of my argument using Nagy/Morris is to first show how much you're exaggeration/stretching it to try to discredit the Yankees.

I know you're not dumb enough to tell me that Morris was the best pitcher of the 1980s, so why would you use the exact same logic when it comes to discrediting the Yankees? Or do you hate the Yankees so much that you'll try every claim in the book just to attempt to knock them down a peg?

So either you're dumb, or you're wildly exaggerating in your claims...which is it?

 

[rokketmn]

This was my original quote on Charles Nagy:

The road was easier. While the Indians had a solid lineup with Manny, Belle, Baerga, Lofton, Thome. etc, Charles Nagy was their best pitcher.

I still stand by that quote, which I made "off the cuff" at the time of my post. If I had known it was going to be nit-picked to death, while driving the the point of the post off topic, I may have chosen my words better. Nevertheless, Nagy was chosen because he was the pitcher that was a mainstay on all of the Indians playoff teams.

Also, by the time 1997 came around, Belle, Baerga, and Lofton were gone from the Indians.

It doesn't change the fact that an Indian pitching staff, whether led by Nagy, Hershiser, Colon, Jaret Wright, Burba, or even Chad Ogea wasn't going to match up with the Yankee staffs of the late '90's.

The '96 Yankee staff was led by Pettitte, Cone, Key, Kenny Rogers, and Gooden
The '97 Yankees had Pettitte, Cone, Wells, Rogers and Gooden
The '98 staff had Pettitte, Cone, Wells, El Duque, and Irabu
The '99 staff had Pettitte, Cone, Clemens, El Duque, and Irabu
The '00 staff (since you insist) had Pettitte, Clemens, El Duque, Cone, and Neagle

Take note that Irabu never made a post-season start, and Gooden made one. Key made 4 post-season starts in his lone year with the Yankees in '96. Teams were mostly facing Pettitte, Cone, Wells, El Duque, or Clemens.

Are you seeing my point yet? It wasn't even that statistically the Yankee pitchers wowed you in any given season (Cone was good all the way through '99), but they were veterans and all stars at one point that you would want on the hill in a big game.

Even if another team could throw a Pedro or a Mussina against them, the Yankees had the rotation depth and experience.

Are we about done here?

 

[rokketmn]

so why would you use the exact same logic when it comes to discrediting the Yankees? Or do you hate the Yankees so much that you'll try every claim in the book just to attempt to knock them down a peg?

While you continue to drone on and on about Charles Nagy and Jack Morris, you still haven't come up with a team that was consistently good in the late '90's to challenge the Yankees.

Who had both the offense AND pitching they did?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Of course you agree completely, you're objectivity is blinded by Yankees homerism.

I'll won't even point out the blatant contradiction you made in your first 2 sentences because you're probably suffering from PTSD over the prospects of a Yankees team with a record under .500.

Ha! Yankee homerism. Classic.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Get back to point. Who was going to beat the Yankees in the late '90's?

The Indians did in 1997. You've now come full circle.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

The '96 Yankee staff was led by Pettitte, Cone, Key, Kenny Rogers, and Gooden
The '97 Yankees had Pettitte, Cone, Wells, Rogers and Gooden
The '98 staff had Pettitte, Cone, Wells, El Duque, and Irabu
The '99 staff had Pettitte, Cone, Clemens, El Duque, and Irabu
The '00 staff (since you insist) had Pettitte, Clemens, El Duque, Cone, and Neagle

Did you actually look at the performances of these pitchers, or did you just look at their names?

If you actually looked at the performances, you'd see that Rogers and Gooden were both DETRIMENTS to the Yankees in those two seasons. Hideki Irabu goes without saying. Not sure why you even bothered to list him. Clemens was thoroughly average in 1999 and Pettitte was downright bad. Cone and Neagle were atrocious in 2000.

Now don't get me wrong, the Yankees' starting pitching was a big reason for their success in the late 90s/early 00s, but you're acting like these were unbeatable rotations. I certainly didn't want some of these guys on the hill in a big game in some situations. They all had their flaws. 1998 was probably the one year where the pitching really carried them. Otherwise, those teams were deep and well-rounded and didn't have one particular area where they were exceptionally strong.

 

[rokketmn]

Even in 2000, when the Yankees won the 4th WS in 6 seasons, these were the pitchers they faced in the playoffs against Oakalnd and Seattle:

ALDS against Oakland: Gill Heredia, Kevin Appier, Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, and Heridia again in the deciding Game 5. Appier led the league in walks that season with 102 in 195 IP. Zito was a rookie and Hudson was in his 2nd season with Oakland.

ALCS against Seattle: Freddy Garcia (twice), John Halama (twice), Aaron Sele, and Paul Abbott.

In the early '00's you started seeing more teams that were good on a consistent basis.

Oakland had a good run from 2000 through 2006, making the playoffs 5 times with 4 first place and 3 second place finishes.

The Angels went from 2002 through 2009 with 6 first place finishes (and playoff appearances), a 2nd and a 3rd. They won the WS in 2002.

The Red Sox went from 1998 (Pedro's first year with Boston) to 2009 with with 8 playoff appearances in 12 seasons. They finished 1st or 2nd 11 times in that 12 year stretch and won the WS in 2004 and 2007.

From 2006 to current, the Tigers have made two WS appearances and one ALCS. Thet are poised to do it again.

The Rays started their run as a force in the AL and the AL East in 2008 and haven't slowed down.

The Rangers started their run in 2009 and have made 2 WS appearances in the last 4 years.

Now you add the Orioles, Indians, and Royals to the mix of teams trying to start consistent runs of their own. Oakland is back again.

Are you starting to see a difference between the late '90's and today?

In the NL, the Cardinals have had a pretty nice run since 2000, making the playoffs 10 times and winning 2 WS. They also have the best farm system in baseball. At least they did. Many of their top young players are now on the major league team.

The Giants won 2 WS in the last 3 years.

The Phillies enjoyed a good run from 2004-2011, winning the WS in 2008.

The Braves, Nats, Reds, and Dodgers are all set up well for the next few seasons.

 

[rokketmn]

Did you actually look at the performances of these pitchers, or did you just look at their names?

I did, and said as much in my post that looking at the stats, there weren't too many "Wow" seasons in there. Cone was consistently good from 2006-2009. Pettitte was mostly good. Wells pitched well in his 2 seasons with the Yankees, and Key wasn't horrible in '96. He was much better before that with the NYY, and had a good season in '97 with Baltimore. Clemens wasn't what he was in '99 and '00 but he wasn't bad. The Clemens won the CY in 2001. El Duque was solid.

The point is that these were all guys that you wanted on the hill in a big game. They were veterans with vast experience in the regular season and playoffs. Nobody else had that. Look at how these guys performed in the post-season. These guys rarely beat themselves.

Then you add in the Yankee bullpen with Rivera, Wetteland, Nelson, and Stanton.

The Yankees still had a succesful run in the '00's, but it came with a lot more competition.

 

[rokketmn]

Now don't get me wrong, the Yankees' starting pitching was a big reason for their success in the late 90s/early 00s, but you're acting like these were unbeatable rotations.

Maybe if there was more competition, those rotations would have been more beatable? It never hurt them in the regular season as they always seemed to win 90+ games. But once they were in the playoffs (aside from a few clunkers), these guys were on their game.