> > He let Roger go because he thougth he was over the hill. He let Mo Vaughn go > even though he was a key to the emotional health of the team. He signed and > kept Everett. His stupid moves outweigh his good ones. > > Me again: > While I think he underestimated Roger, he was clearly right about Vaughn. > Underestimated Roger. That is the understatement of the year (well maybe the day). The guy will have won two Cy Young Awards and the two throwing things at Mike Piazza Awards after the Sox let him go. Just look at the disaster that Vaughn has been for the Angels, and tell me that he was worth _$80 million_ which is what his contract was for. He has been hurt. He meant a lot to the team and the city. You do not let the emotinal centers of your team walk if you want to build a champion.
> Now wait a minute young man. Best ever. How about Gibson, Kofax, Guidry (at > his peak) Roger himself, Whitey. Give me a break. He is the best active > pitcher not doubt about it. But the best ever? > I really, really mean this - it's not even close. I know you really mean it but that doesn't mean I have to believe it. You're just naming names here, Bob. Hey I watched Ken Burn's "Baseball". Seriously. I have named the names of players I have watched pitch. Kofax was unbeatable as was Gibson in the games I remember (mostly WS stuff). So is Pedro but not as consistently in big spots. I think the Yankess think (with reason) that they can win games Pedro pithces in; some how some way; that was not true for Kofax. I remember what the Yankees said about him. They were utterly defeated. Note that I am not arguing Pedro's greatness just that I don't think he has proven himself better than those I have mentioned and some I have forgotten. As to Guidry. He had one year when he was unhitable. He didn't bother to waste pitches on 0 and 2 counts just kept throwing is slider and fast ball. Pedro had two totally dominant years. But his team did not win the championship and he did not drag them there. To be the best ever, ever, you must do that. Think about it for a minure. You like stats. What are the odd! ! s that anyone playing now is the best at his position? Better than an yone who played the game for the past 120 years? I may be a Yankee fan but you are a "present fan". Again, that's not analysis. His two most dominant seasons are the two most dominant seasons _ever_ by a pitcher, in terms of the > number of runs he allowed versus those that an average pitcher would have > allowed. I repeat, there is a realistic lower limit on ERA. I would argue that anyone under 2.00 in any era is a great pitcher. Is Pedro the best pitcher in history? No, because his > career hasn't been long enough. I'd probably pick Whitey Ford, but Roger > Clemens just might end up with that title by the end of his career. He's > well on his way. But his two peak seasons - 1999 and 2000 - were the two > most dominant seasons by any pitcher ever. The stats you site are of course interesting and revealing but stats are used in an attempt to characterize past performance so that future performance can be predicted. Kind of like economic indicators. The numbers don't lie but they may not capture the important element in any system. > > Me: > Jeter is a very, very good player. He has too many errors but he has great range and makes the big play. You can't have seen him play every day and argue that he is a poor fielder. In this year, a Who all of this underserves is Alex Rodriguez, who is so > far superior to the other two that even comparing him isn't fair. I think this may be one case when we really are seeing the best ever at a position. It is his power that seperates him from the great shortstops of the past. But note. He was with Seatle for many years. They were a very good team but not good enough. He is gone and Seatle survived quite well thank you very much. Texas has not faired nearly as well. Jeter had a poor first half. He was hurt for most of it. He has been phenomenal in the second half of the year. Let me give you the penultimate anti-stat guy. Larry Bird. He had very ordinary stats (ordinary for a superstar) poor 3 pt % but trust me as a Knick Fan I can tell you that if he made one in three each one of them put a dagger through the heart of the knicks or the lakers or whoever else he was playing. That is what stats can't capture; part of what I think you see as "luck". The key play. It is nice to know how many runs a player drives in the ninth inning of games. But even a good stat like that may not capture the fact that the ninth inning of some games are more important than the ninth inning of key games. The ball always bounces in the Yankees favor, and the > > umps always make mistakes on their behalf (I'm not claiming conspiracy, > just > > a one-century run of good luck Well now I will let you in on a little secret; The Yankees are god's team. We keep quiet about it of course but if you are right about luck than there is no other explanation. Of course if there are certain players who can deal with an enormous amount of pressure, who actually play better under pressure than it will look like luck. The ball that just gets by the Nomar ends up in Jeter's glove even though his stats aren't great. Luis Soho can get that little nubber down the first base line. But if he doesn't do it then someone else will do it in the next inning. Over the past 5 years they have found ways to win. A 7-game series is always going to be nothing more than a flip of the coin. But then why have a championship at all. Seven games is actually quite a few. Football has one game. To get to the last 7 games you have to get through the LCS etc. This is not luck. but it is a different game than the regular season. Now you could argue that the regular season is more important but that is not how we judge and not how the players judge success. Winning the championship is all that is important. > > but I just can't see any of the NL teams beating either the Mariners or > the > > A's, although I think Houston, the Cards, and maybe even the Diamondbacks > > might be able to handle the Yanks. > > > Bob: > You have made this arguement before. I do not pretend to know what will > happen but to argue that the Yankees have been lucky is just foolish. What > is their won lost in the playoffs over the past 5 years 70/30. No way luck > sustains you for that long againstt that kind of competition. This is a > special team. One for the ages. Like the Yankess of old, like the Celtics, > Bulls and the UCLA in bball, like the Islanders on their great run. Your > grandchildren will be asking you about this team. You don't want to look > down at their expectant eyes and tell them "The Yankees were lucky". The > Yankees are great. Winners classy winners, team winners. The ideal, the real > deal. Go bombers. > > Me: > See, Bob, the difference between our arguments is that mine are irrespective > of teams, while yours always seem to end up with "The Yankees are better." Well I'm just having a bit of fun here. And I would argue the same thing about the great Celtic teams, teams I hated teams that brought me to tears. But they had that unmeasurable (quite literally) ability to rise to the occaison. Jordon and the Bulls were the same although in that case it was mostly Jordon. > This is suggestive, no? :-) Yes, I think it was partly luck combined with > the fact that they were, in 1998, a team of historic caliber, in 1999 they > were the best team in the majors. But in 2000 they were just lucky. They had won 2 straight championships three of four. They were a bit older and somewhat injured. They did what they needed to do to get to the playoffs and then they won. Can they do it again? I don't know. If they are healthy I like their chances. Luck> played a role, unless you think Jeffrey Maier was skill, for example. That again! What guarentee do you have that they wouldn't have won the series anyway. That play didn't decide the series. It decided one game. > the phantom tag by Chuck Knoblauch. Or any of a dozen other things. Luck > is luck. and skill is skill. The Orioles were lucky in 1997 - good, and lucky. The Yankees > were phenomenally good in 1998. In 2000 they were lucky. Oakland was a > better team. They have yet to demonstrate that they are a better playoff team than the Yankees. They may very well be. We will see how they handle the pressure. How they handle the game within a game that goes on in championship series. Winning teams are usually lucky. Last year the Yankees > weren't very good. They were good when they had to be. | >
