I looked around as I approached 3rd Avenue from 95th Street. It was a nice, sunny Saturday afternoon in Brooklyn; not too hot, but just hot enough not to mistake it for anything but summer. I was getting back into the gym after a bit of a layoff. It had probably been a month and a half since I had been a regular, but I was taking the all-important first step back in. I had an old-school radio headpiece in, listening to Waldman and Sterling. John Sterling was calling the action, and the Yanks had a comfortable 5-1 lead. As I strolled past the deli and CVS, I shook my head. John Sterling had just announced that Boston had just come back from a 7-3 deficit to tie their game at 7-7. Being that the game was at Fenway, it was over, as far as I was concerned. And even though the Yanks were winning, I knew they were going to lose Sunday, and Boston was without a doubt going to sweep. So we were staring at losing two games in the standings this weekend. Funny how three of those games were even or yet to be played, but I would have bet good money on the exact outcome of all three. And I’m sure just about every Yankee fan alive would have been right next to me.
On paper, this was a treacherous six-game stretch for the Yanks. Three games against the White Sox on the road and three against Anaheim while Boston was playing three against both Kansas City and the O’s. This had “Boston leaps right back into it” written all over it. The Yanks actually have four against the Angels, but since Boston switches opponents, I was keeping it to the weekend. The way I had it drawn up, the Yanks, barring a miracle, would take two of three from Chicago and lose two of three to the Angels. Boston would take two of three from KC and either two of three from the O’s or sweep them. Well, in the end the result was the same, but we came at it a bit differently. Chicago, thanks to Mr. Konerko, got their miracle, and Boston dumped all three in KC. So I had the Yanks losing either one or two games. They ended up losing one. Can’t complain, I guess. This had the potential to be much worse.
It really is a mystery, this Anaheim Angel anathema. John Sterling was rhapsodizing about it all weekend, as well he should. They own the Yankees. Sterling made a good point on the radio today, as I sat and listened on the beach at my mom’s cabana at Lido on Long Island. They’re only three games over .500 (now four), so they’re getting beat an awful lot by somebody. Yup. Just not the Yanks. There’s a lot involved, of course. Chone Figgins hits .400 lifetime against the Yanks, .500 the last two seasons. This is a guy hitting .264 on the year, mind you. And he’s a monster when he gets on base. Bengie Molina hit three homeruns in five games against the Yanks in the playoffs last year. He averages about 11 home runs a season. What can you do? It’s just one of those things. But there are also more concrete reasons. They run an awful lot and they take chances on the base paths. You don’t see that all that often. It’s disruptive, particularly when your most dangerous base runner hits.150 points above his career average. The ability of their pitchers to throw strikes is another reason. The Yankees will bleed you to death if you don’t get the ball over the plate. And they do, for the most part. And all-in, they’re a pretty good team. So give them some credit. But they’re not this good. Sometimes you just can’t explain it. You know, like the Red Sox going 86 years without a World Series.
The BPS has always asked questions about how the schedule is created. I know MLB (along with the NFL, NBA, and NHL, I should add) keeps the schedule-making process a closely guarded secret. Obviously there are some extreme sensitivities. Every team wants the Yankees to play as many games as possible in their park, because those games are automatic sellouts, meaning more money for the team, town, etc. But the more interesting aspect is how MLB arranges things. I have heard some people say that the real reason for the switch to the unbalanced schedule was to give MLB more leeway to make subtle manipulations to the schedule. The way things stand now, any team can play any other non-division team 6, 7 9, or 10 times. Often divisions are won and lost by a game or two at the end. The balance of who a team plays 6 times and who they play ten times makes a huge difference. No one but MLB knows how they cut these up, but everyone agrees that it isn’t random. We have heard ad nauseam that the Angels are the only team with a winning record against Joe Torre’s Yankees. Is it a coincidence that the Yankees and Angels have played the maximum ten times every year for the last three years? I don’t know. The BPS always cites the schedule makers for the reason the Red Sox have started almost every single season in first place for the last 9 years, and every year they fall into second around July/August, and that’s where they end up. Is it coincidence? Maybe. But the schedule tells you so much about the season. I don’t know how MLB operates. But it would be tempting for MLB, don’t you think? The Yankees are more talented than the Red Sox every year. And every year they are destined for first. As we have said many times, it’s in MLB’s best interests to keep the race interesting for as long as possible. If they can front-load Boston with cream-puffs early on and have them jump in front, they create more interest, and with it more revenue dollars. Maybe I’m nuts, but it happens every single year. I do know that teams are sensitive to the schedule. The Mets often complain that they have to play the Yankees six times and nobody else in the NL does. They don’t complain too loud, because they’re getting sellouts, but in a competitive year their schedule is going to be tougher. The Yankees play the Angels ten times this year. The Angels were the division winner last year. Boston only plays them six times. The Mariners came in last place in the division last year. By a lot. The Red Sox play them ten times. The Yankees play them six. I have no idea what’s at play, but a playoff team playing the last place team in the division four more games than the first place team? A game or two, fine. But four games? I don’t know what the dynamic is. But I’d love to know. The Yankees are battling the Red Sox right now. We’ve cited the schedule many times as the difference maker. Consider also that to date, the Yankees have played three extra against the Mets while the Sox were bashing the rest of the woeful NL’s brains in, three extra games against Chicago and one extra against Detroit, and you can see that the Yankees not only have a better record, they’ve traveled a tougher road to get there. You do what you have to do, I guess, but again, I’d love to know.
So, it looks like I’ve awakened the sleeping White Sox fans. Welcome back, mypster. I must confess, my dissatisfaction at the comment production last week pushed me to stir the pot a little. I figured some bombastic language might bring back some of the old White Sox contributors; mypster, Eric, etc. Although Eric did comment after the series in NY, to his credit.
Mypster, love the passion, bro. I love that you took the time to come on in and offer some clear thoughts as to the status of your team. As always, feel free to stop bye any time you want. And I’ve read every one of your comments very carefully. I’m not going to lie to you, dude, your credibility has to take a bit of a dent here. First of all, you’re right. People can manipulate lots of things with stats. Grossman, Vino, JJ, Big Willie, the Lt and I had to read a book in B-School called How to Lie with Stats by Darrell Huff. But don’t fall into the trap of thinking they’re meaningless or useless. For instance, the Royals have a lower batting average, higher ERA, less runs scored, etc, etc. than your White Sox. By a nautical mile. Anybody who knows baseball would tell you, then, that a wide margin like that would probably mean that they are not as good, and their record would probably reflect that. And they would be right, of course, with strikingly high probability.
With that as backdrop, let’s look at the Yanks/White Sox series this year. Forget for a moment that the Yanks won four of six, which is the all-important stat. You have offered that the stats are meaningless. “If we had just scored 30 runs a game off you in the Bronx,” you said, “we would have won every game.” The flaw in your logic (and I don’t mean to demean your point, again, I’m psyched you took the time to make it, I’m only trying to have you make it a bit more salient) is that you’re hypothesizing. Let’s stick to what actually did happen. Let’s go to the numbers:
|
R |
H |
2B |
3B |
HR |
RBI |
TB |
BB |
SO |
SB |
CS |
OBP |
SLG |
AVG |
Yanks vs. Chi |
42 |
66 |
17 |
2 |
12 |
42 |
123 |
24 |
39 |
9 |
0 |
.375 |
.564 |
.303 |
Chi vs. Yanks |
29 |
59 |
14 |
0 |
7 |
27 |
94 |
14 |
39 |
1 |
4 |
.330 |
.448 |
.281 |
To your point, dude, stats sometimes tell a strange story. But these are pretty tough to argue. You don’t like some of these stats, pick some others. The Yankees are better in every single category. These are the hitting stats, but as the pitching stats are the inverse, they look the same, trust me. Sorry - there is one stat where the Sox walloped the Yankees, 4-0. Caught stealing. But maybe you don’t like that one….
I agree with some of the things you said, Myp. The point we at BPS were trying to make is that the numbers do tell a succinct story. The differences in the numbers don’t just correlate to the series in the Bronx. The Yankees also out-hit, out-slugged, and out-OBP’d the Sox in Chicago. The conclusion, then, supported fully here, is that the White Sox did not do what was in their own control (pitching and hitting) well enough (read: better than the opponent) to win the series in Chicago. They needed the Yankees, who out-hit and out-pitched them, according to every stat, to help them with the outlier stat – errors. So they got that help and won the extra game. Kudos to them. Errors happen, and the win counts just as much in the standings. But if you are trying to ascertain the better team, you have to calculate that those two unearned runs that gave the ChiSox the series aren’t going to come along and save you very often. You want to throw out the crying about the umps’ calls, I’m with you. We did say that the officiating was bad for both teams, so go ahead and chuck that one. And from an analytical perspective, the Konerko miracle doesn’t represent anything unusual, either. It’s just noteworthy because it was against Mo. From an analytical perspective it was one bomb in the course of nine innings, so it wouldn’t represent an outlier to a fair Chi Sox win.
On a broader note, I think the other issue with your thought process is that you’re using the wrong baseline. You’re comparing everything to last year’s White Sox. What you’re not realizing, apparently, is that last year was an astronomical outlier year for the Sox. This year they are more in line with the norm. The baseline for a player’s performance is his career numbers. The exception would be if a player is in the very early stages of his career and his career numbers haven’t yet materially formed. The Tigers and Mets might be an example of that in 2006 with their young stars. The Twins might also be an example. The problem with the White Sox is that none of these guys are up and coming stars. Look at the lineup. Konerko, Thome, Dye, Pierzynski, Podsednik. These guys are all at least 30 (Pierzynski turns 30 this year) and have been with at least three different teams. These guys aren’t spring chickens, and they all have long track records. It’s not like they all just got better. Even Crede, the one guy you could argue has blossomed of late, is 28 and in his 7th year in the majors. Iguchi is a baby, but he’s a career .280 hitter. And on the other side, nobody on the starting staff has been in the majors for less than seven years except Contreras, who turns 35 this year. They all have long and pretty spotty track records. Everybody’s ERA this year is a lot closer to their career ERA than last year. What all this means, myp, is I don’t think you realize what a fantastic anomaly you had in the White Sox last year. Everybody was playing out of their minds compared to their career numbers. And the heart of the lineup is still way out of synch with their career numbers. It won’t continue. It never does. To compare any team to such a remarkable confluence of probability that was the 2005 White Sox would be ridiculous.
But where I really have to knock you down, in terms of credibility, is your silly statement about the Twins. Sorry, dude. You have not done your homework. The BPS is generally pretty straightforward about the Yanks. We said last year that the Angels were a better bet to win the ALDS, and we acknowledged on many an occasion this year that the Yankees were not the best team in the AL East. After the moves at the deadline, and after the injuries to key Red Sox players, they are. And they’re better than the Tigers, Sox, and Twins, all of whom they beat up this year. And will continue to beat up. If it makes you feel better, I still think the White Sox win the Central, and I still don’t think the Tigers will make the playoffs. The Red Sox will continue the AL East mastery over the AL Central this week, much the dismay of the BPS, by beating the Tigers by at least two of three. The Yankees have already taken the season series, barring a 3 game sweep by the Tigers at the Stadium, which isn’t going to happen. But the Twins? There is simply nothing to back that up, and it’s a silly pretension. Not your best work, dude.
All-in, I couldn’t be more psyched that you took some time for us, myp. Vive le difference, and lots of scores will be settled in October. Most Yanks fans have an added skepticism about the Chi Sox because they didn’t beat the Yanks last year. Tied the season series and didn’t face them in the playoffs. Not their fault, of course, but they were the only AL team in the last 12 years that didn’t have to beat the Yanks in the playoffs to win the pennant. Not a particularly meaningful tidbit, but it’s always in the back of our minds.
The Mrs. and I will be section 24 tomorrow night (Monday). We know what we have to do. I hope you guys have time at work on a Monday morning to read all of this. Hey Ras, I hope this alleviated some of the “boredom”……