Is this the last of the Yankees?

[rokketmn]

The Rangers had a good run in the late '90's, making the playoffs 3 times in 4 seasons, but they seemed to run into the Yankees. I wonder why they lost.

Oh...These were the pitching matchups in the playoffs:

1996: Cone vs Burkett; Pettitte vs Ken Hill; Key vs Darren Oliver; Rogers vs Bobby Witt. Yanks in 4
1998:Wells vs Stottlemyre; Pettitte vs Rick Helling; Cone vs Sele. Yanks in 3.
1999: El Duque vs Sele; Pettitte vs Helling; Clemens vs Loaiza. Yanks in 3

 

[StanMarsh51]

The Rangers had a good run in the late '90's, making the playoffs 3 times in 4 seasons, but they seemed to run into the Yankees. I wonder why they lost.

Oh...These were the pitching matchups in the playoffs:

1996: Cone vs Burkett; Pettitte vs Ken Hill; Key vs Darren Oliver; Rogers vs Bobby Witt. Yanks in 4
1998:Wells vs Stottlemyre; Pettitte vs Rick Helling; Cone vs Sele. Yanks in 3.
1999: El Duque vs Sele; Pettitte vs Helling; Clemens vs Loaiza. Yanks in 3

Looking at the series stats, I don't think you can really say it was the Rangers' pitching that let them down:

1996 ALCS - 3.55 ERA, 1.32 WHIP
1998 ALDS - 3.24 ERA, 1.20 WHIP
1999 ALDS - 3.60 ERA, 1.32 WHIP

The Rangers offense forgot how to hit in the playoffs, especially '98 and '99 where they sported a .152 and .141

 

[rokketmn]

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.

Because if I didn't list them, some chucklehead (he knows who he is)would come back and say that I was omitting them just to suit a Yankee bashing agenda, and that the Yankee rotation wasn't all I was making it out to be.

Damned if I do; Damned if I don't.

 

[StanMarsh51]

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.

I think you're making Pettitte out to be better than he was.

He had 2 good years ('96 was good and '97 was great), and 2 mediocre years ('98 and '99) given his ERA+, WHIP, K/BB all screamed mediocre those 2 years, so I don't see how being mediocre 2 out of 4 years is "mostly good"

During the playoffs those 4 years, he had a 4.78 ERA...you didn't know which version of Pettitte you'd be getting in the playoffs - the guy who'd go 7 innings allowing 1 run, or the guy who'd go 5 innings allowing 6 runs.

 

[rokketmn]

Looking at the series stats, I don't think you can really say it was the Rangers' pitching that let them down:

I didn't say that.

All I mentioned were the pitching matchups. I didn't even mention that Cone lost Game 1 to Burkett. It wasn't the point. The point was the pitching matchups. Do I really have to delve into the career records of Sele, Hill, Loaiza, Burkett, etc? Do they really compare to Cone, Wells, Pettitte, Clemens, and El Duque?

The point is that you say the Ranger bats let them down, while not saying that the Yankee pitching quieted the Rangers bats. Interesting.

I think all who have posted on this have been around a while, and understand the old adage that "Good pitching stops good hitting". Yet you chose the route of "bad hitting makes poor pitching look good".

You have also not shown me that the Yankees had any real threats during their run, other than an outlier or two in a given season (Cleveland and Baltimore in 1997).

Meanwhile, I have pretty much run the course with AL baseball in the 1990's (mid to late in particular), and given quite the sampling of the competitiveness of baseball in the new millenium.

Thanks for playing.

 

[StanMarsh51]

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.

How many of these teams "consistent winners" since you love throwing that term around? I mean, the Phillies made the playoffs 5x in 9 years (soon to be 5x in 10), the Tigers have made the playoffs 3x in the past 7 completed seasons, way too early to even consider mentioning the Royals and Indians, etc

What defines consistent? Is making the playoffs 50% considering a "consistent winner?" Is it finishing .500+? What's your criteria.

 

[rokketmn]

During the playoffs those 4 years, he had a 4.78 ERA...you didn't know which version of Pettitte you'd be getting in the playoffs - the guy who'd go 7 innings allowing 1 run, or the guy who'd go 5 innings allowing 6 runs.

A 4.24 ERA (1998) during the steroid era is not a bad season. It is not great, but probably league average. Also, Pettitte's post-season ERA was right around his regular season ERA, so he was pretty much the same pitcher.

I guess what I remember is when Pettitte beat Smoltz 1-0 in game 5 of the 1996 WS. Yanks go down 3-2 if they lose, and then they wrapped it up in game 6. It's just when he got beat, he seemed to get hammered. Still, I would take him on the mound in a big game any day and take my chances.

 

[rokketmn]

What defines consistent? Is making the playoffs 50% considering a "consistent winner?" Is it finishing .500+? What's your criteria.

I guess I am looking for more than a 2 year stretch. With those teams I mentioned, they all have had success over at least 4 years and most more than that. That may not necessarily involve finishing in 1st place, but making playoff appearances, or if they didn't, they were still probably 2nd or 3rd with a record much better than .500.

I don't know off-hand what the exact win totals were for those teams I mentioned, but my giuess would be that they won at least 88-90 games a season during their "run". I am mostly talking about teams that didn't just have a good season or two and then disappear.

I just checked the Philleis, and they finished 2nd in 2004/2005 and 2006 with at least 85 wins. Then from 2007-2011 they finished 1st all 5 years and made 2 WS appearance (winning 1). There was a build from their 2004-2006 seasons.

Tampa's run from 2008-2012 included winning at least 90 games every season but one (84 in 2009).

Detroit hasn't been as consistent year to year, but from 2006 to current, they have won 95, 88, 74, 86 (lost playoff game to the Twins), 81, 95, and 88 games.\

Boston enjoyed a good run from 1998-2011, winning at least 85 games all but once, with most seasons over 90.

I don't think I need to go through all of them again. The stats are out there.

The O's made the playoffs in 1996 and 1997, but the 2 seasons prior and every season after until last season they finished under .500. That is not the mark of a consistently good team.

The Indians had the most consistent run from 1995-2001 (winning at least 86 games), but as I stated WAY too many times already, their pitching was very suspect.

 

[StanMarsh51]

A 4.24 ERA (1998) during the steroid era is not a bad season. It is not great, but probably league average. Also, Pettitte's post-season ERA was right around his regular season ERA, so he was pretty much the same pitcher.

I guess what I remember is when Pettitte beat Smoltz 1-0 in game 5 of the 1996 WS. Yanks go down 3-2 if they lose, and then they wrapped it up in game 6. It's just when he got beat, he seemed to get hammered. Still, I would take him on the mound in a big game any day and take my chances.

Which is exactly what I said, mediocre (which is average or ordinary). He was mediocre in 1998 and 1999. His WHIP each of those 2 years was 1.45+ and a K/BB of around well under 2. So he wasn't mostly good those 4 years. He was good for 1/2 the span and mediocre for the half of the other.

You may remember him beating Smoltz 1-0 in 1996, but he also got spanked in game 1, allowing 7 earned in 2.1 innings....like I said, you didn't know which version you were getting those years..

 

[rokketmn]

So then let me ask you this again. Who had a pitching staff comparable to the Yankees, and which team(s) posed as legitimate competition for the Yankees in the late '90's?

These are questions you keep avoiding, instead challenging on stats that don't have great meaning in the overall argument.

Based on the numbers I showed from 1995-1999 and those shown from 2000 to current, you can't tell me that the latter hasn't been a far more competitive era in baseball.