August 27, 2006
August 27th @ The Angels
Watching Bernie Williams have a big day in this game reminds me of something that I saw the other day over at Yankees WPA Rundown.
The study there was through August 19th. But, if you look at it, in terms of WPA, when the Yankees win, Giambi, A-Rod, and Bernie bat well. But, when the Yankees lose, Giambi and Bernie do very poorly in terms of helping with the bat.
Does this mean that Bernie Williams is the MVP for the Yankees this season?
No, it does not. What I think this all means is that it's another confirmation of the theory that the Yankees are very capable of beating bad pitching - but, if they face someone who has the stuff to get you out (which is the kind of pitcher that Bernie dies against now) then New York will lose.
The next 9 games will be another test for this theory - since the Yanks will face good pitching for the next six games and then bad pitching for the three after those contests.
While I would love to see the Yankees go 6-3 over their next 9 games, I am also prepared to see them go 3-6 as well.
Boston still has 10 games to play in a row now. Hopefully, the Red Sox will go something like 4-6 and that will help offset what the Yankees really do in their next 9 games.
Posted by Steve Lombardi at August 27, 2006 07:39 PM
The yankees have won against quite a few good pitchers this year. obviously you will as a whole not hit good pitching as well as bad once.. that's why those pitchers are good in the first place... duuuuhhhhhh
I'm pretty confident that we will win the series against Detroit, they have a lot of problems masked by their records.
1. hitting: they lead the league in Ks and is near last in walks, I guess this is Dusty Baker's dream team.... that's probably why they added Neifi!! .. seriously. does any lineup featuring Neifi!! scares you?
2. pitching: they got great talents, but are either very young or Kenny Rogers... they have guys that's starting to tire and break down too.
I know we beat them 3 out of 4 and shouldve won all 4, but dont you or anyone else take into account that the tigers will expend maximum effort to beat us the same way every other team does. we probably aren't going to see the same zach minor who handed the red sox a game earlier this year the same way we got stuck with a -3 game swing because of a loser Adam Loewen (hes got potential though)who decided to dominate us twice and be dominated by them.
did anyone see the catcher for the cards win 2 games in a row...i cant remember a game in which any of our backup catchers even got a meaningful hit..maybe kelly stinnett's 3 run homer v the royals to solidify a victory..but never in a million years are we getting anything from gary bennett just like we didnt see anything from our loser backups post-girardi.
also, i got a laugh reading joe torre's comment about the angels where he says that the angels never die, no matter what the score. LOL (i wished i couldve heard it, but i dont watch postgames if we win for good luck) Either he knows it in his heart, or he is just that stupid b/c just 5 days ago, the same team threw out robb quinlan in 2 of 3 games v the red sox and lost 2 one run games while leaving like 15 batters stranded in scoring position in the two games.
I am so used to hating every boston team for getting handed everything (im told by everyone "they didnt win for 86 yrs", but thats b/c we were good enough to overcome umpires & we actually had some good luck then) there is very little room for hate in my heart. But one of the teams I just despise is the angels, the way they got swept in 2004 like a bunch of losers, but if they played us that year, they wouldve creamed themselves at the opportunity to beat us and then lose 4 in the alcs v the red sox just like Fat f*ck albert and the cards died against them.
Every decent team beats bad pitching and has difficulty against good pitching. I don't know why you seem to think it's unique to the Yankees.
Rich - here's the deal.
There are studies out there that prove that good hitting beats good pitching as much as good pitching beats good hitting.
Now, I can't tell you that they Yankees beat good pitching as much as the next team, but, it doesn't seem like they do.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at August 28, 2006 10:23 AM
How is "good pitching" defined, anyway? Is it strictly on this year's numbers? On his career? On how he's pitched over the last few years? The pitcher's stuff? His potential? What sort of groove he's been in? How he's done against them in the past?
Outside of looking at this year's ERA, "good pitching" is pretty subjective.
I would say it's on a given day thing - like, when Schilling is on, do the Yankees fold up and die, or, do they still manage to get three or four runs?
Certain teams, again, it just seems, find a way to beat the great pitcher when he has his good stuff - like the Yankees used to do with Pedro.
Has this Yankees team beat many great pitchers this year when they had their good stuff? I don't remember any.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at August 28, 2006 11:06 AM
the game against the twins in which Mariano got cheated on a pitch to luis castillo, then struck rondell white and someone else out with 2nd and 3rd and 0 out...& then got screwed anyway b/c of a turf hit that robbie couldnt keep in front of him for only one run....we had Johan beaten that day and i think missed a runner on 3rd less than 2 out opportunity against him and also andy phillips either missed an opposite field shot or hunter robbed him.
oops, i just checked b/c i thought something was strange about andy phillips hitting a near opposite field homer off of him...Johan was struggling b/c of the wbc
Steve, that seems almost impossible to measure. It's like a chicken-egg argument. The pitcher could have his stuff in the early innings but the Yanks might really be on point during that time as well. The pitcher adjusts, trying to throw more strikes to counter the Yanks' ability to draw walks, and, in turn, he loses his stuff by the third inning. Don;t the Yanks have Zito's number this year. You could argue he hasn't pitched with his best stuff against them, but it seems like too much of a coincidence that he tends to have good stuff against other teams and not the Yanks. Didn't the Yanks score 4 runs off of Johan "Best Pitcher in Baseball" Santana earlier this season? I guess he didn't have his best stuff because when he does, no one scores anything against him. But that seems unfair to the Yanks then.
I'm too busy and lazy to look it up right now, but I believe we knocked Halladay around once this year. We also got to Schilling at least twice. Roughed up Kazmir a bit. And we pretty much own Barry Zito (though I personally don't consider him a good pitcher).
One thing that people seem to forget about the old Pedro argument is that Pedro's performace would always be matched by good starting pitching on the Yankees' end. The way they would beat him is scratch and claw for a few runs while their end of the starting pitching held their end of the bargain, he'd get it to Mo, and that would be it. Sure, they started pummeling him towards the end, but I don't think that was until after the Grady Little "incident".
Also, a lot of the games that the Yankees have lost (I don't have the numbers because I'm illiterate at this stuff) they have held the lead in. The pitching has just not held it. That is the concern going into October. Other than some games where you just about pull your hair out due to stranded runners, I feel good about the offense.
In my opinion the key is keeping Proctor, Villone, and Mo fresh enough to make the games into 6-inning affairs, so to speak. Farnsworth is going to be a crap shoot, rested or not. And if that doesn't work out, I think the key is going to be somebody surprising us, whether it be Bruney or someone like that.
I guess as far as Villone goes, I don't expect him to be a hammer, but maybe a guy who can take the ball in the 5th or 6th if the starter folds and play the Mendoza role by keeping it close.
Also, sorry for the sloppily written post. Too much going through my head and into the keyboard during that one!