Printable View
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/1....html#comments
Quote:
According to a report in the Dominican newspaper Impacto Deportivo, the Yankees are on the verge of signing Manny Ramirez to a three-year, $75MM deal. The report says negotiations are advanced and an announcement would take place Monday or Tuesday. If true, this would be an incredible scoop. However, there is reason for skepticism. The money and timing just don't seem right.
Hm...perhaps my memory is foggy, but when was the last time one team signed 3 of the top free agents in the same offseason?
I wouldnt doubt it would be the Yanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If true, where would Manny play? That would be my concern, although having two of the best power hitters hitting back to back would be scary good
I dont think it would help them that much to be honest. It seems like nowadays the teams that look the best "on paper" usually crack under pressure.
We need another power hitter
Manny is one of the best power hitters of this generation
I don't see how this move wouldn't help
Right now, it's what....Quote:
Originally Posted by defense
C - Posada
1B - Swisher
2B - Cano
3B - A-Rod
SS - Jeter
LF -
CF -
RF -
DH -
Melky Cabrera, Johnny Damon, Xavier Nady, Hideki Matsui, and Manny Ramirez are the remaining 5 guys to fill those 4 slots. Personally, to maximize production on both sides of the field, I'd probably go with an outfield of Matsui in left, Damon in center, and Nady in right, with Manny as the DH. Manny really SHOULD DH at this point. Cabrera should get a good deal of playing time as a late-game defensive replacement for Matsui, coming in to play center with Damon shifting to left. You also have to account for the odds that Damon/Matsui/Ramirez are all aging and/or prone to injury, so they will, in some combination, miss a chunk of time for which Cabrera will be the starter.
I'm just saying, but on the whole in recent years, the Red Sox have basically been the best team on paper...and well...do I need to say much more than that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
didn't they trade cabrera for cameron?
It was rumored to be very close but was never completed, and may never be completed. If it does wind up happening, I would probably go with Damon in left, Cameron in center, and a Matsui/Nady platoon in right, with Manny DHing.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
I dunno, but i presented a hypothetical scenario in the summer, that everyone ridiculed me about (even though it wasn't even mine) that I'm gonna break out.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
No, but the Yankees were the best team on paper before that, and well, they choked. If I had to put a years salary I still say Tampa is the better team no matter what the Yanks do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Before when? In the last few years, it's been the Red Sox.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
And exactly what is "choking" to you? Not winning the World Series? Because, that's the only definition I can come up with that would consider the Yankees as "chokers", and I think that's an awfully harsh (and inaccurate) label to put on to 29 different teams every single year. By any reasonable definition of success, the Yankees have been extremely successful in the last decade and a half.
Having not won the World Series since 2000 isn't indicative of any 'choking', unless you're using a different definition of "choke" (and when I think "choke" I think "cracked under pressure", which is what it appears you're using as well). In a 30 team league with an 8 team, 3 round playoff system, the World Series winner is really rarely the best team in the league, and the playoff teams that didn't win the World Series didn't "choke", unless we take "choke" to simply mean "losing a 5 or 7 games series." Losing a playoff series does NOT mean that the team "cracked under pressure."
I haven't looked into the teams that closely, and won't until spring, but just off the top of my head, I don't think I'd disagree.Quote:
If I had to put a years salary I still say Tampa is the better team no matter what the Yanks do.
The only time we have choked is in 2004 IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Do you really think that those Yankees were any more susceptible to pressure than any other version of the team? Entire teams aren't likely to wilt under pressure. **** just happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5DiMaggio
I'm just saying. You can't go up 3-0 and lose though.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yes, you can. Teams go on 3 game winning streaks followed by 4 game losing streaks all the time. Yes, this particular instance came in the playoffs, all against one team, so it was magnified, more intensely scrutinized, etc. But that doesn't mean that the team just up and decided "Oh, jeez, we just won 3 games, we feel such immense pressure to win a 4th that we're going to suck so much and lose 4 consecutive games." What it likely means was that the Yankees and Red Sox were both very evenly matched teams, and the luck just broke in favor of the Red Sox over the course of the final 4 games.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5DiMaggio
But, we were in the lead late and then our bullpen blew it we've should've won that series. They had a dramatic rally against our bullpen which is unacceptable IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Unacceptable, terrible, horrible, crappy, bad, etc. Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5DiMaggio
Mariano Rivera is/was a world-class closer, the best ever, plenty used to pitching in 9th inning pressure packed ball games. He has a 0.77 ERA in 117.1 postseason innings. Sorry, but this is not a guy that dies under pressure.
Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, 9th inning, he was off his game, for whatever reason, very likely just bad luck. He walked the first batter, who was replaced by a pinch runner, who stole a base, and then a single knocked the guy in. This does not mean that the pressure was bogging him down and he couldn't find the plate. It just means that he had a bad inning, like every pitcher in the history of baseball has had.
Alright, I see where your coming from and respect your point of view, I just think we should have won one of the next 3 games though. I don't think you can change my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Of course not. You're a Yankee fan. Of course you think the Yankees should have won one of the next three games. But, even so, it doesn't mean the pressure did them in and they choked.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5DiMaggio
Yeah, still, I don't think the pressure got to them, I just don't think they played to the level they were capable. Wow, you just changed my opinion, they didn't choke....I hate you lolQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
There's reasons why MLB teams have never blown a 3-0 lead prior or since. Anyhow, we'll yield to your hypothesis that them losing didn't necessarily have to do with pressure or 'choking'. However, to be fully honest you'd have to do the same, and agree that pressure and 'choking' may have been a big part of it. It doesn't matter what fan you are a team of to have either opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Me personally........I can't see how pressure didn't have a big part of it. As the Sox closed in, the Yanks tightened up.
manny and damon in the outfield. maybe they can get Mike Greenwell to come and DH a bit.
Of course there is. The chances of it happening are slim.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I don't HAVE to. While I will certainly admit that there may be individual players that may have their on-field performance affected by pressure, I cannot buy that an entire team of full-grown professional baseball players collectively wilt under pressure, and I certainly cannot buy that the greatest closer in the history of the game who has allowed a total of 10 earned runs in 117 postseason innings just happened to be in a situation he's been in tons of times before and THEN the pressure affected him and he screwed up, as opposed to him having just screwed up because every single baseball player in history have has an inning where they screwed up due to sheer luck.Quote:
Anyhow, we'll yield to your hypothesis that them losing didn't necessarily have to do with pressure or 'choking'. However, to be fully honest you'd have to do the same, and agree that pressure and 'choking' may have been a big part of it. It doesn't matter what fan you are a team of to have either opinion.
It's easy to apply this sort of explanation after the fact, obviously.Quote:
Me personally........I can't see how pressure didn't have a big part of it. As the Sox closed in, the Yanks tightened up.
Thank you.Quote:
While I will certainly admit that there may be individual players that may have their on-field performance affected by pressure
A whole team doesn't have to be affected to cause enough of a disruption to lead to a loss.
If it's the pressure that caused 4 straight losses rather than, you know, just simply losing...it'd have to take a huge chunk of players on that losing team to be negatively affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And I think it's evident that a huge chunk of players on the losing team were negatively affected by pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
This was the ALCS, against their most hated rivals, and their rivals were getting closer and closer to winning. How could that pressure not mess them up?
If it's evident, prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Because they're a team of full-grown men, professional baseball players, players that have been on many winning teams in both the regular season and the playoffs...they've spent their lives playing games under pressure. They're not just some weak-willed people who suck when they have to win.Quote:
This was the ALCS, against their most hated rivals, and their rivals were getting closer and closer to winning. How could that pressure not mess them up?
Game 4 turned in that 9th inning where Rivera walked Millar, Roberts stole second, and Mueller drove him in. Rivera is pretty much the epitome of a guy that doesn't crack under pressure. Explanation for this...**** happens. The game ended on David Ortiz hitting a home run off Paul Quantrill. Great slugger vs. crappy middle reliever...gee...whose going to win that battle?
Game 5 was a 14 inning game. This, again, demonstrates what I said earlier about how the two teams were very evenly matched. And it ended when...gee....the Yankees had Esteban Loaiza on the mound...a guy with a 5.70 ERA in 183 regular season innings...an 8.50 ERA in 43 innings while playing for the Yankees. Was it really "pressure" that made the Yankees lose this game, or was is that...Esteban Loaiza sucks?
Game 6 was yet another close game 4-2. The Yankees threw Jon Lieber, a mediocre pitcher who...pitched a mediocre game, allowing 4 runs in 7.1 innings. The Red Sox threw Curt Schilling, who would go on to place 2nd in the the AL Cy Young voting. Pressure, or Curt Schilling being amazing and Jon Lieber being mediocre?
Game 7 was a 10-3 blowout. The Yankees started Kevin Brown, a mediocre starting pitcher who had pitched poorly in his first start of the series, and then proceeded, once again, to pitch poorly. Pressure, or simply the fact that Kevin Brown just wasn't that good anymore? Brown was relieved by Javier Vazquez, another mediocre pitcher.
Looking more closely at the series, I'm known even more certain in my belief that pressure had next to nothing to do with it. The Yankees and Red Sox were two evenly matched teams. The Yankees lost simply because they had mediocre or terrible pitchers pitching in a key spots like the 14th inning of a tie game while the Red Sox countered with fantastic hitters. Fantastic hitters winning out over the shitty pitchers has nothing to do with pressure and everything to do with the fact that the pitchers sucked and the hitters were good.
Might as well just leave it alone mets. The guy who usually argues 'against' luck is now going to put this whole issue to the tarot cards when it suits his narrow sighted argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
When the hell do I of all people argue against "luck"? :confused: Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I'm the guy that ascribes a lot of happenings in baseball TO luck, rather than trying to find some other explanation for something that can simply be described by luck, randomness, regression to the mean, small sample size, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And furthermore, after examining the series in more detail, I'm backing off of my claim that the Yankees lost simply due to the luck breaking in favor of the Red Sox. As I described above, the Yankees lost the series because the two teams were evenly matched, and in the key spots in the final 4 games, the Yankees had crappy pitchers playing while the Red Sox had good hitters playing. Really, Game 4 is the only one that I'd toss up to luck, because Mariano Rivera just simply had a bad 9th inning, and like I said, that's not something he does often, and he's not a guy that cracks under pressure.
You really can't prove intangible things...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But let's use a hypothetical situation. You're doing very well at your job...one day you notice that a guy that you hate is quickly rising through the ranks and is aiming for your job...you start sucking at your job...isn't it because your cracking under pressure?
Maybe. I don't know. It depends entirely on the individual in the situation, plus many other factors such as experience with the job, experience in other pressure situations, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
As I said, I won't deny that individual players may be affected negatively by pressure enough to affect on-field performance (although I won't for a second claim that I have the ability to actually identify which players they are), but a situation of one person being pressured at his job is not really applicable to a situation of an entire team of 25 professional baseball players being pressured at the same time.
I just went through those final 4 games which were supposedly lost because the Yankees are a bunch of pussies that can't play under pressure, and all I found was a bunch of crappy players doing crappy and good players doing good. If you're going to claim that pressure is what caused the losses, at least do some work and provide some evidence to back it up. I've provided plenty of evidence to back up my claim (and I've even revised my original claim).
dhQuote:
Originally Posted by defense
Back to the original point to this thread, Brain Cashman denies the rumor
Everyone should just keep in mind that all of this talk right now, about Manny, Tex, CC, etc... it's all just that. Talk. Rumors. A lot of it is public posturing, by both teams and players.
It can be fund but if you're looking for real information then just wait and see.
Those of you that believe in "choking", "intangibles", and even "clutch" would be well advised to pick up "The Book" by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman, and Andrew Dolphin, which picks apart various baseball "truisms" in the area of strategy and long held beliefs in myths such as clutchiness and since the opposite of clutchiness is chokiness and chokers fail to possess those fabled intangibles that make them succeed, it deals with those indirectly as well. Optimal batting lineup, bunting, hot and cold streaks (which are extremely relevant to short playoff series), clutch performance, when to use the intentional walk, platoon strategies, and what to make of those batter/pitcher matchups that are endlessly regurgitated. It is a fabulously detailed, objective piece of baseball research.
Were the Boston Red Sox chokers in the first 3 games of that infamous series and then the New York Yankees broke into their clubhouse and stole their bad mojo for the next 4? Or, did the Yankees just win the first 3 games and Boston won the last 4? Like Houston says many times during any regular season, teams will win at least 3 in a row and when the streak ends lose at least 4 in a row. It happens all the time. Why shouldn't it happen in the playoffs? But, it had never happened before except in the NHL in the 1940's. That's because the odds are so heavily stacked against the team that's down 3-0, but it can still happen and it did. Also factor in how many 3-0 leads there have been in history and I think you'll still be looking at an extremely small (and therefore not all that worthwhile) sample size.
Our memories are incredibly selective. We are told Derek Jeter is "Captain Clutch" and so everytime we see him come through in the clutch yet again, we say there he goes again, while forgetting all the times he doesn't come through in the clutch because they don't confirm our belief that he always comes through in the clutch. Same thing in reverse for Alex Rodriguez, that "world class choker". We only remember all the strikeouts with ducks on the pond in big situations, but we forget how often he comes through because that falls outside of our belief system.
See the attached text file for a breakdown of their numbers as I can't seem to figure out how to make it appear within a nice little box within this post. As you can see A-Rod outperforms Jeter by OPS in each of the seven situations. Yes, A-Rod's numbers in 2 out RISP and Late and Close situations fall off from his other categories, but he's still around .900 in both situations, which hardly justifies the label "choker". Jeter also (interestingly enough) falls off in Late and Close situations, and beats his overall OPS by 21 points in 2 out RISP situations, which hardly justifies the "Captain Clutch" label bestowed upon him by ignorant media and parroted by "knowledgeable" baseball fans everywhere. Knowledge, one would hope is based on some sort of objective evidence.
Well, what about the playoffs? Yes, A-Rod falls quite a bit off his regular season overall numbers with an .844 OPS in 147 AB. Jeter has nearly the same OPS as his regular season overall one at .846 in 495 AB. So, do you mean to tell me that 2 points of OPS is the difference between "Captain Clutch" and the "Choker"? Between the "True Yankee" and the pretend one? Wow, stunning what the myth makers can make you believe eh?
The final case would be the case of Barry Lamar Bonds in the postseason. Early in his career with the Pirates, he flat out stunk up the joint in the playoffs. Then, 2002 came. Yes, I know he was doing all that flaxseed oil, but flaxseed oil alone cannot explain 8 HR in 45 AB and even with the magic of the oil, you've got to put the bat on the ball, which of course chokers never do when it matters. Can clutchiness explain it? This guy was a playoff bum prior to that, always choking when it mattered. Well then, what can? I think we're left with only one answer: he hit a hot streak during the playoffs.
Those of you that want to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, clutch, chokers, and intangibles are welcome to. Just don't ask me or apparently Houston to go along for the ride - there's just way too much evidence that debunks these myths and fables, no matter how comforting they are to believe in. Forgive if this is dragging the Man-Ram thread off course again, but others have put their 2 cents in - this is mine. Bah, humbug! :p
Well call me old school, but if a team comes out as favorites in the beginning of the season to win the world series, and they do not while having a payroll that is enourmous compared to other teams. Im sorry its a choke. I think any other argument, is just to argue.
To answer your question Houston, New York has been favored just about every season prior to and including 2004 when Boston won the WS.
With a 162 game season, 30 team league, 8 team/3 round playoff, the preseason favorite to win the World Series rarely ever wins the World Series. (Not to mention the part about the payroll is largely irrelevant, as the amount of money spent gives no indication of the quality of the team. See: Seattle Mariners).Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Hell, the favorite to win the World Series amongst the 8 playoff teams rarely actually winds up winning. This is because of the very nature of the playoff system which is NOT designed to find the actual best team amongst its participants (and there is no way for a playoff system to actually be designed to do that, due simply to the short length which allows for a higher variance of outcomes).
To quote a paragraph or two from this year's Hardball Times Annual:
Given all this information, I certainly do think that applying a "choker" label to any "favorite" that doesn't end up fulfilling the predictions of people that were made prior even to the first game of a 162 game season being played is too harsh and does not accurately describe what took place (unless "to choke" no longer means "to crack under pressure").Quote:
The coda to all this - and I say this knowing that I am invoking the wrath of Phillies Phanatics who waited nearly 30 years for a championship - is that the best team quite obviously did not win the World Series. By almost any non-superficial measure, the best team in the majors in October 2008 was almost certainly the Boston Red Sox.
But it's not an injustice that the Red Sox didn't win the championship, nor is it an indictment of the 2008 World Champion Phillies. It's a validation of a playoff process which was not designed to make the best team the prohibitive favorite. It's a validation of the playoff process - the one all 30 teams agreed upon - that favors tension, uncertainty and clutch performance. Philadelphia won when it counted. It didn't make the Phillies the best team, it made them World Champions. If you're a fan, why would you care about anything else?
And sorry, I'm not taking this stance in the argument "just to argue."
I see what your saying, maybe its just the word choke. Lets just say with all that money shelled out, the players didnt do what they are suppose to do.
I can buy that, but I still might disagree, for various reasons including but not limited to age, injuries, the fact that salary doesn't always coincide with quality, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
And still, prior to 2008, the Yankees had made the playoffs every year, and from there, it really is just a crapshoot, especially when it comes to the payrolls of the playoff participants. Even in 2008, the Yankees won 89 games in the league's best division, which can hardly be described as a failure (using any reasonable definition of "failure". I don't think that Steinbrenner's definition of "Anything less than a World Series victiory" is a reasonable definition).