Yankees on verge of signing Manny Ramirez?

[gRYFYN1]

He means the best team overall, not the team that performed the best in October.

Ah okay, thats reasonable but the way he phrases it

the best team in the majors in October 2008

would seem to indicate otherwise.

[HoustonGM]

For sure, I can see that they were an older team, not as good as other teams. But on the other hand, why would you spend that much to not get the results you want? I know this can start a slew of different answers. But this is why its such a great topic, the Yankees.

Interestingly enough, the article in the Hardball Times Annual that I just began to read brought something to my mind.

Obviously, big offense and pitching (of any quality, really) are the two most expensive "commodities". The Yankees have spent a ton of money on big hitters and mediocre pitchers. This is the reason they have such a high payroll. However, they have had TERRIBLE defense. Using John Dewan's plus/minus system, the Yankees over the 2003-2008 period have had an overall plus/minus figure ranging from -42 (2007) to -164 (2005). That's denominated in plays above/below average. Simply put, the Yankees have, year after year, been terrible defensively, something not captured when you look merely at their payroll, which includes a ton of no-glove, big-bat players.

[HoustonGM]

Ah okay, thats reasonable but the way he phrases it

would seem to indicate otherwise.

I could see the confusion, but yeah, he means that, of the teams playing in October, the Red Sox were the best team, but they didn't perform the best in October, which is his point - the best team doesn't always do the best in the playoffs.

[dickay]

ragecage, do you have devices that measure the degree of performance anxiety that every MLB player experiences? Stupid question, of course you don't. You can say they didn't perform up to expectations, which in the Bronx are ridiculously unrealistic, but you can't definitively, objectively say they choked. Who favoured them? Those fallible human beings who call themselves "experts". Could they not see the cracks, make that gaping wounds, after the 2003 season in the pitching staff that was decimated by a mass exodus of quality experienced starting pitching (Wells, Clemens, Pettitte)? Somehow they overlooked that and declared the Yankees favourites. That endorsement and the ridiculous expectations of Yankee fans and management alike, not to mention the bloated payroll led to this gross inflation of completely unrealistic expectations. Having a behemoth offense and suspect pitching can get you through the regular season in good shape, but the playoffs are a different story because you're facing the best pitchers on the best teams and your suspect pitching can get exposed. Give me one foot in the old school - they don't play the games on paper, and one foot in the new school - where the concept of clutch, choking, and intangibles are words people use to describe the luck that happens every time a round bat strikes (or doesn't) a round ball.

Up 3-0...it was more than just the 'experts' who favored them. All of baseball, fandom, Vegas, and pretty much everyone in the world did, and heavily.

[HoustonGM]

Up 3-0...it was more than just the 'experts' who favored them. All of baseball, fandom, Vegas, and pretty much everyone in the world did, and heavily.

Actionjackson was referring to ragecage claiming the Yankees were World Series champion favorites prior to the season. We've moved beyond the discussion of just the 2004 ALCS.


Also, just read this tidbit that follows from my post about the Yankees defense....Of the World Series teams over the 2004-2008 period, the 2007 Rockies had the worst plus/minus figure, clocking in at -3. The average plus/minus figure for the World Series teams was +35, an indication that a strong defense is a key indicator of a World Series quality team. (In 2003, the Yankees and Marlins were both poor defensive teams, with the Yankees at a -48 score and the Marlins not much better at -43). Big offense/poor defense, as the Yankees have, can get you through the regular season and into the playoffs, but defense seemingly does take on added importance in October, where one single play can be do or die, as opposed to the regular season where defensive miscues can even out over the course of 162 games.

[actionjackson]

And so they should have been favoured dickay. Why is it that people cannot see that the fact is that the Yankees lost 4 games in a row plain and simple? They happened to come at the absolute worst possible time, but that's all it was - a four game losing streak. Just about every team has at least one that lasts that long during any given season. Unfortunately for Yankee fans, that's when it happened, but it doesn't indicate that they couldn't handle the pressure. It just means that they had a skid.

[Jeffy25]

I could see the confusion, but yeah, he means that, of the teams playing in October, the Red Sox were the best team, but they didn't perform the best in October, which is his point - the best team doesn't always do the best in the playoffs.

i.e. the cardinals in 06, w 84 wins, won the series

[dickay]

And so they should have been favoured dickay. Why is it that people cannot see that the fact is that the Yankees lost 4 games in a row plain and simple? They happened to come at the absolute worst possible time, but that's all it was - a four game losing streak. Just about every team has at least one that lasts that long during any given season. Unfortunately for Yankee fans, that's when it happened, but it doesn't indicate that they couldn't handle the pressure. It just means that they had a skid.

I don't know why its so hard to see/admit that nerves play a part, often a large part in playoff competition, albeit baseball, football, checkers, or chess. Again, there's a reason why nobody has ever lost 4 straight after being up 3-0..there's a reason why they were so heavily favored. Honestly though, refusing to see/admit that there is something more to baseball than simply going and playing 9 innings like a 'mental aspect' is pretty naive....though the fact you two are so adament on it, its really not worth my time trying to persuade otherwise or read much more on this.

[HoustonGM]

I don't know why its so hard to see/admit that nerves play a part, often a large part in playoff competition, albeit baseball, football, checkers, or chess.

Saying that they "play a part" is far different than saying they were the deciding factor. I have stated in this thread that they play a part to individual players.

Again, there's a reason why nobody has ever lost 4 straight after being up 3-0..there's a reason why they were so heavily favored.

Which we've already explained multiple times.

Honestly though, refusing to see/admit that there is something more to baseball than simply going and playing 9 innings like a 'mental aspect' is pretty naive....though the fact you two are so adament on it, its really not worth my time trying to persuade otherwise or read much more on this.

At this point, it's not our fault that you are completely misunderstanding what we're saying, but let me, once again, state it for you.

There is a mental aspect to baseball. Obviously. It's played by human beings. Human beings have both mental and physical functions that factor into everything. To state otherwise wouldn't even begin to make sense.

We are not stating otherwise. We are saying, well, a few things (well, this is what I'm saying. I believe actionjackson would agree with all of which I'm about to say, but I don't want to speak for him):

• A) It is not possible to accurately identify which players (and thus, by extension, which teams) are affected by pressure.
• B) It is not possible to accurately identify in what way pressure affects players. This refers to both the effect it has on performance, as well as how great of an effect it is.
• C) A and B are in large part due to the sample size issue.
• D) The evidence of the performance of all players over the course of the history of the game in what would be considered "clutch situations" shows that, given significant sample sizes, players tend to perform identically in such situations as they do overall. There are, of course, exceptions, which are EXPECTED simply due to variation.
• E) As a follow-up to D, if we examine the performance records of players that have been "identified" as "clutch" or "chokers" (usually by the media), we see that these labels are largely not true once you look at the whole record instead of focusing solely on the situations which validate such claims.
• F) In regards to this specific discussion, we do not believe that the Yankees lost the 2004 ALCS after going up 3-0 because they choked under the pressure. As stated above, this is NOT the same thing as saying that the pressure and mental aspects of the game had no effect.
  
  My original claim was that the Yankees lost the series due to the luck breaking in favor of the Red Sox. However, I took a closer look at the series, and changed my position, and I no longer am saying that luck was the deciding factor. My breakdown of the series has seemingly been ignored by the "2004 Yankees are pussies that can't handle pressure" crowd. To restate simply and quickly, the Yankees lost the final 4 games largely due to the fact that in the key situations, they had pitchers on the mound that ranged from mediocre to abjectly terrible, which is a recipe for disaster, particularly against the historically great offensive team they were playing against. Sure, you can say that these bad pitchers cracked under the pressure, but I think the obvious thing to say is that they were simply bad pitchers facing off against good hitters, and, well, that usually results in the good hitters winning out.

I'm willing to listen to evidence to support your claims. Howver, nobody's provided any actual evidence in this thread. It's just restating of what is basically "Well, because baseball is played by humans, and pressure affects humans, baseball players are affected by pressure", which, of course, nobody is denying. Actionjackson and I have both taken rather in-depth looks at the situations in question (overall clutch performance, 2004 ALCS, etc.) and have provided evidence to back up our position. You're more than welcome (in fact, I encourage you) to take our evidence to task, in addition to providing your own. If you have any evidence that pressure is what caused Paul Quantrill and Esteban Loaiza to serve up game-winning hits to David Ortiz, rather than the fact that Ortiz is awesome and Quantrill and Loaiza suck, please provide it.

[ragecage]

Interestingly enough, the article in the Hardball Times Annual that I just began to read brought something to my mind.

Obviously, big offense and pitching (of any quality, really) are the two most expensive "commodities". The Yankees have spent a ton of money on big hitters and mediocre pitchers. This is the reason they have such a high payroll. However, they have had TERRIBLE defense. Using John Dewan's plus/minus system, the Yankees over the 2003-2008 period have had an overall plus/minus figure ranging from -42 (2007) to -164 (2005). That's denominated in plays above/below average. Simply put, the Yankees have, year after year, been terrible defensively, something not captured when you look merely at their payroll, which includes a ton of no-glove, big-bat players.

And this is why it doesnt bother me if they sign Manny.

[actionjackson]

I concur Houston, and I would also say that I understand the position of the "clutch", "choking", "intangibles" side of the arguement. I do not agree with it because the objective evidence tells me it does not exist but I understand the fact that it's very hard to surrender beliefs which are so deeply ingrained and are constantly reinforced by the typical talking heads, ink stained wretches and various and sundry other hacks that populate the general sports media. It's also hard because baseball due to its relaxed pace has this romantic, sentimental, pastoral, emotional aspect to it that's not as present in the other sports. Cold, hard analysis is a massive juxtaposition up against an easy, breezy warm summer's day, but if you want to test whether these things exist, objective analysis must be used. It is the only way to "prove" or "disprove" anything. The rest of it is just subjective conjecture and selective memory which can confirm our beliefs, but offer little in the way of proof. The only quibble I have with your points Houston, and it is miniscule, is the statement that bad pitchers facing good hitters, usually results in the hitters winning out. This game is so slanted against the hitters because of the other guys on the field behind the pitcher. You can hit a screamer and still be out, or lose out to the pitcher, on a brilliant fielding play.

I would take it one step further than Houston and say that the 750 (at any given time) players that populate MLB are all at an extraordinary level of mental toughness when compared with the general population. This is a game where the great hitters fail more often than they succeed. You can do everything absolutely technically perfect and still fail and if you don't learn how to deal with this failure (or develop mental toughness) you will be weeded out long before you become a regular in the big leagues. Most of us have the experience of the butterflies as kids playing whatever sport we played and I don't for a minute say that these guys don't get butterflies. Players in MLB have learned to play through the pressure, butterflies, and constant failure. Do some do it better than others? Of course, but if you compare them against the general population, they're probably all in the top 1%. Before you ask, no I don't have any absolute proof to back up that claim, but look at these facts and numbers: 1) These are the guys that were the best players (with some exceptions) on every team they ever played on and 2) Only the extraordinary players have survived the massive weeding out process that has culled the field from however many million to 750. Yogi Berra said: "90% of this game is half mental" and whatever that means in a mathy sense he's right: these guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to dealing with pressure, butterflies and failure. That's why they pay 'em the big bucks.

[200tang]

lots of good info in this thread

[HoustonGM]

The only quibble I have with your points Houston, and it is miniscule, is the statement that bad pitchers facing good hitters, usually results in the hitters winning out. This game is so slanted against the hitters because of the other guys on the field behind the pitcher. You can hit a screamer and still be out, or lose out to the pitcher, on a brilliant fielding play.

Yes, of course, taken at face value, that statement isn't really true. As that old adage goes, even the best hitter fails 7 out of 10 times (which isn't really true, but that's a story for another day), so even when a bad pitcher faces a good hitter, the pitcher's going to get that batter out more often than the batter gets on base, but the point is just that...when you have mediocre and terrible pitchers going up against fantastic hitters, you really shouldn't blame "pressure" as the reason for the loss. The reason for the loss is that they have fantastic hitters and you're countering with terrible pitchers.

I would take it one step further than Houston and say that the 750 (at any given time) players that populate MLB are all at an extraordinary level of mental toughness when compared with the general population. This is a game where the great hitters fail more often than they succeed. You can do everything absolutely technically perfect and still fail and if you don't learn how to deal with this failure (or develop mental toughness) you will be weeded out long before you become a regular in the big leagues.

Excellent point. I wanted to say just that, but wasn't sure how to word it so that the point got across well. Excellently said.

[actionjackson]

...As that old adage goes, even the best hitter fails 7 out of 10 times (which isn't really true, but that's a story for another day)...

Yep, another truism bites the dust. Ted Williams is the all-time leader in career OBP with a .482 (!) mark, which would mean he still failed at his job (to not make an out) 51.8% of the time. You're kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel when you talk about hitters that fail 7 out of 10 times.

I would like to throw "team chemistry" along with "clutch", "choking" and "intangibles" into a boiling vat of acid and would be happy to never hear the patter of those words again in reference to baseball or all of sports for that matter. Team chemistry is ascribed to teams that win, usually when they win at a level that exceeds their perceived level of talent. "I can't explain why they're winning at the rate they are. They must have good team chemistry." Oye. I doubt any of these four terms will drop out of the lexicon any time soon though. They're just too easy and too tempting and make for great copy, when you're writing the stories of the great teams. It's really hard for writers to admit that they don't know why Team A beat Team B, so they take the easy way out.

[Slingshot]

Please, let this happen.