The 2015 Official New York Yankees Thread

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Yankees are in the playoffs (such as they are at this point - one and done coming up, grrrr). Frankly I'm surprised, given my own assessment of the team earlier in the year. Without elaboration, here are the reasons why they made it this far (in no particular order):

Didi overcame his understandable early season jitters and turned out to be a serviceable replacement at SS.
Decent seasons by Headley, Gardner, Ellsbury, and Beltran. Not great seasons mind you, but acceptable performances.
A-Rod. After dumping on him for years, I cannot get over what he did this year at his age and under the circumstances he faced.
Gregory Bird, who filled in capably for the oft-injured Teixeira. I will be Bird-watching next year.
Begrudgingly, Teixeira himself, when he could keep himself out of the training room. Continuing my bird analogies, this season could be Tex's swan song.
John Ryan Murphy. I don't know which is a bigger embarrassment: That the Yankees must continue with McCann because of what they have invested in him or that they must sit Murphy down because of McCann.
Brian McCann. Yes, I just got done dumping on him too but I must acknowledge 94 RBI's.
Dustin Ackley, who may be a "diamond in the rough." I am glad to see that he is only 27.
Decent seasons by Pineda, Eovaldi, and Tanaka. Not great seasons mind you, but acceptable performances.
Luis Severino. Keep your eye on this one.
And, of course, the dynamic duo of Betances and Miller.

Obscure Yankees whose names do not appear above were at best mediocre to bad. I will not bother listing their names.

But I will list these well-known Yankees for whom I would be lowering the boom soon if I were Cashman:

McCann *
Teixeira **
Drew **
Young *
Ryan **
Sabathia **
Nova *

* Cashman to player: "Shape up and produce next year or be gone."
** Cashman to player: "Thanks. Pack up your stuff. You're done."

Hmmm. Out of all that I just said, McCann is the most troublesome. On the one hand, I see a .234 batting average and 97 K's. On the other hand, I see 26 home runs and 94 RBI's.

Am I being too harsh on him? Is his defensive prowess more than enough to overcome his paltry batting average? That's the usual excuse for a catcher.

More to the point, is he that much better defensively than Murphy? Because I think Murphy would be a better hitter than McCann if he were given a chance.

[VarsityGIJane]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Hmmm. Out of all that I just said, McCann is the most troublesome. On the one hand, I see a .234 batting average and 97 K's. On the other hand, I see 26 home runs and 94 RBI's.

Am I being too harsh on him? Is his defensive prowess more than enough to overcome his paltry batting average? That's the usual excuse for a catcher.

More to the point, is he that much better defensively than Murphy? Because I think Murphy would be a better hitter than McCann if he were given a chance.

I don't know too much about Murphy though I've heard a little about him. But as for McCann, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. A 31 y/o C signed for three more years at 17M per year (vesting option for another year) who gives you .268 BA, 20+ HR, 70-80 RBI on average. Definitely no problem with that.

As for 97 SO... I'm looking at the sortable player stats on that, and you got guys with similar numbers that struck out 60-70 more times. I think it's a trade-off you have to kinda eat. Let's look at some of the outstanding performers this year: Chris Davis struck out 206 times (.258/45/112), Nelson Cruz with 161 SO (.303/44/93), and Mike Trout whiffed 157 times (.297/41/89). Hell, our comeback boy A-Rod had 144 SO (.252/33/86). Do we discount these kind of numbers based on SO total? Nope. ESPN certainly won't get off Trout's, well, "trout", knowing that along with those great number, he strikes out quite often.

When you sort by home runs and look at the 30+ HR hitters this year, these guys invariably have 100+ SO or very close to 100 SO. There are two exceptions: Pujols with only 72 SO (.242/39/93) and our very own Teixeira with 85 SO (.255/31/79). I think it depends also on what you value, because those SO might be low, but their averages aren't spectacular either.

So in summation, for someone who's not producing (who has proven they can) and has high strikeouts (100+ in my view), it'd be a concern. Otherwise I think you take the bad with the good. Historically, Brian McCann had an excellent season and I'd say he struck out a reasonable number of times, maybe a *tad* high. What more do you expect, given his career stats? You're being harsh in my opinion.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by VarsityGIJane

I don't know too much about Murphy though I've heard a little about him. But as for McCann, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. A 31 y/o C signed for three more years at 17M per year (vesting option for another year) who gives you .268 BA, 20+ HR, 70-80 RBI on average. Definitely no problem with that.

As for 97 SO... I'm looking at the sortable player stats on that, and you got guys with similar numbers that struck out 60-70 more times. I think it's a trade-off you have to kinda eat. Let's look at some of the outstanding performers this year: Chris Davis struck out 206 times (.258/45/112), Nelson Cruz with 161 SO (.303/44/93), and Mike Trout whiffed 157 times (.297/41/89). Hell, our comeback boy A-Rod had 144 SO (.252/33/86). Do we discount these kind of numbers based on SO total? Nope. ESPN certainly won't get off Trout's, well, "trout", knowing that along with those great number, he strikes out quite often.

When you sort by home runs and look at the 30+ HR hitters this year, these guys invariably have 100+ SO or very close to 100 SO. There are two exceptions: Pujols with only 72 SO (.242/39/93) and our very own Teixeira with 85 SO (.255/31/79). I think it depends also on what you value, because those SO might be low, but their averages aren't spectacular either.

So in summation, for someone who's not producing (who has proven they can) and has high strikeouts (100+ in my view), it'd be a concern. Otherwise I think you take the bad with the good. Historically, Brian McCann had an excellent season and I'd say he struck out a reasonable number of times, maybe a *tad* high. What more do you expect, given his career stats? You're being harsh in my opinion.

Excellent analysis. Convinced.

I hate to see Murphy languishing, however. I think he's got a good bat and catching tools.

[VarsityGIJane]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Excellent analysis. Convinced.

I hate to see Murphy languishing, however. I think he's got a good bat and catching tools.

I agree with you on that. McCann was signed in the 2013 offseason and Murphy made his debut that same year in September at age 22 and had only 27 PA. So that's not too much to make an assessment off of (he hit .154 but you can't judge based off 27 PA like I said). So if you're the Yankees, you know this guy could be good but there's a 30 y/o FA who's a proven asset. Get him for five years and have Murphy in the wings ready to take over that spot when he's fully matured.

Murphy got chances last year as well as this year so we have a bigger sample size, and so far it looks fine. Last year he hit .284/1/9 with 22 SO (since we were looking at SO before) over 85 PA. Over the 168 PA he got this year, he hit .283/3/14 with 41 SO. Remember how McCann had 97 SO? He got those over 527 PA, and I think that helps puts it into perspective too. I'm sure Murphy will improve that aspect as he continues to adjust to major league pitching.

But in 2013, I can see why the Yankees went with McCann, a proven asset, instead of taking a huge chance on mostly unproven talent. Try to imagine Murphy's numbers above over McCann's 527 PA. Pretend we didn't sign him and started Murphy. McCann had about 3x the number of PA as Murphy. If we assume consistency and do simple math rounding up one or two, that's like 10 HR, 35 RBI, and 125 SO this year. Just a ballpark estimate and it could go either way (since it's baseball and all, plus Murphy would likely hit lower in the order than McCann, and again is still developing and improving). His minors numbers don't make him seem like a slugger either, more of a doubles hitter. He was helpful down the stretch here, but as an everyday starter now? Maybe not quite yet. Not over McCann yet. But one day, sure.

[VarsityGIJane]

Also, doubleheader sweep by the Orioles. *Sigh* . Can we not get fully swept please?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by VarsityGIJane

I agree with you on that. McCann was signed in the 2013 offseason and Murphy made his debut that same year in September at age 22 and had only 27 PA. So that's not too much to make an assessment off of (he hit .154 but you can't judge based off 27 PA like I said). So if you're the Yankees, you know this guy could be good but there's a 30 y/o FA who's a proven asset. Get him for five years and have Murphy in the wings ready to take over that spot when he's fully matured.

Murphy got chances last year as well as this year so we have a bigger sample size, and so far it looks fine. Last year he hit .284/1/9 with 22 SO (since we were looking at SO before) over 85 PA. Over the 168 PA he got this year, he hit .283/3/14 with 41 SO. Remember how McCann had 97 SO? He got those over 527 PA, and I think that helps puts it into perspective too. I'm sure Murphy will improve that aspect as he continues to adjust to major league pitching.

But in 2013, I can see why the Yankees went with McCann, a proven asset, instead of taking a huge chance on mostly unproven talent. Try to imagine Murphy's numbers above over McCann's 527 PA. Pretend we didn't sign him and started Murphy. McCann had about 3x the number of PA as Murphy. If we assume consistency and do simple math rounding up one or two, that's like 10 HR, 35 RBI, and 125 SO this year. Just a ballpark estimate and it could go either way (since it's baseball and all, plus Murphy would likely hit lower in the order than McCann, and again is still developing and improving). His minors numbers don't make him seem like a slugger either, more of a doubles hitter. He was helpful down the stretch here, but as an everyday starter now? Maybe not quite yet. Not over McCann yet. But one day, sure.

I have contacted Cashman and told him about you. Expect at PM from him.

Originally Posted by VarsityGIJane

Also, doubleheader sweep by the Orioles. *Sigh* . Can we not get fully swept please?

Would have been nice if not. Well, the only important thing now is a "one-game sweep" on Tuesday night.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Yankees are in the playoffs (such as they are at this point - one and done coming up, grrrr). Frankly I'm surprised, given my own assessment of the team earlier in the year. Without elaboration, here are the reasons why they made it this far (in no particular order):

• Didi overcame his understandable early season jitters and turned out to be a serviceable replacement at SS.
• Decent seasons by Headley, Gardner, Ellsbury, and Beltran. Not great seasons mind you, but acceptable performances.
• A-Rod. After dumping on him for years, I cannot get over what he did this year at his age and under the circumstances he faced.
• Gregory Bird, who filled in capably for the oft-injured Teixeira. I will be Bird-watching next year.
• Begrudgingly, Teixeira himself, when he could keep himself out of the training room. Continuing my bird analogies, this season could be Tex's swan song.
• John Ryan Murphy. I don't know which is a bigger embarrassment: That the Yankees must continue with McCann because of what they have invested in him or that they must sit Murphy down because of McCann.
• Brian McCann. Yes, I just got done dumping on him too but I must acknowledge 94 RBI's.
• Dustin Ackley, who may be a "diamond in the rough." I am glad to see that he is only 27.
• Decent seasons by Pineda, Eovaldi, and Tanaka. Not great seasons mind you, but acceptable performances.
• Luis Severino. Keep your eye on this one.
• And, of course, the dynamic duo of Betances and Miller.

Obscure Yankees whose names do not appear above were at best mediocre to bad. I will not bother listing their names.


But I will list these well-known Yankees for whom I would be lowering the boom soon if I were Cashman:

• McCann *
• Teixeira **
• Drew **
• Young *
• Ryan **
• Sabathia **
• Nova *

* Cashman to player: "Shape up and produce next year or be gone."
** Cashman to player: "Thanks. Pack up your stuff. You're done."

I highlighted the names that I was surprised you called their seasons solid. Ellsbury and Gardner have gone in a collective slump that has resulted in our sputtering offense. I remember at one point an espan announcer said the Yankees have one of the best 1-2 punch at the top of the order for baseball. Ellsbury should not be a .260 hitter and Gardner was a .300 hitter at the all-star break.

Pineda who once looked like our ace last year (5-5 1.90 era), but this year it is either feast or famin.

For McCann 97 so is considered good in today's baseball world unfortunately.

I think Tanaka had an alright year but not ace material. With the performances we had this year and if we could have Pineda and Tanaka pitching like last years version, along with Ellsbury and Gardner hitting the way we expect them too then we would be closer to the jays in the divison.

I think we are going to be 1 game swept out of the playoffs because we just look lifeless. No more of that explosive offense we watched earlier this year.

[knightdreamer2k]

Talk about backing into things. We did not look good into this stretch at the end of the season. Hard to know who our starter will be for the wildcard game. Pineda hasn't looked good in a while, and our best starter is a rookie.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

Talk about backing into things. We did not look good into this stretch at the end of the season. Hard to know who our starter will be for the wildcard game. Pineda hasn't looked good in a while, and our best starter is a rookie.

Tanaka! was there ever a doubt?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

I highlighted the names that I was surprised you called their seasons solid. Ellsbury and Gardner have gone in a collective slump that has resulted in our sputtering offense. I remember at one point an espan announcer said the Yankees have one of the best 1-2 punch at the top of the order for baseball. Ellsbury should not be a .260 hitter and Gardner was a .300 hitter at the all-star break.

Pineda who once looked like our ace last year (5-5 1.90 era), but this year it is either feast or famin.

For McCann 97 so is considered good in today's baseball world unfortunately.

I think Tanaka had an alright year but not ace material. With the performances we had this year and if we could have Pineda and Tanaka pitching like last years version, along with Ellsbury and Gardner hitting the way we expect them too then we would be closer to the jays in the divison.

I think we are going to be 1 game swept out of the playoffs because we just look lifeless. No more of that explosive offense we watched earlier this year.

Yes, with E&G I tried to look at the entire season but lately they really have been unproductive. Losing three in a row to "the other" birds, and six out of seven to end the season would make anybody look bad but those guys sure did a nosedive from mid-season.

Yet, baseball is a funny game, streak-wise and momentum-wise. A team can turn around on a dime when it's showtime. The Astros poured 21 runs on the Diamondbacks the other day. Can Tanaka contain that offense? If not, then it will indeed be one-and-done for the Yankees.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Can Tanaka contain that offense? If not, then it will indeed be one-and-done for the Yankees.

Answer: No, because with only three Yankee singles all night, Tanaka needed to throw a shutout and that did not happen. So, one-and-done, see you next year. I hate this wildcard game.

Let's face it, though. The Yankees ended up the season in a slump and they gave no indication of coming out of it tonight. As they are right now, this Yankees team would have had a rough time against the Royals much less the Jays, assuming the Jays beat the Rangers.

Hey, 20 other teams did not even make it this far. Along with the disappointment, there is that small consolation. Yeah, right.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Answer: No, because with only three Yankee singles all night, Tanaka needed to throw a shutout and that did not happen. So, one-and-done, see you next year. I hate this wildcard game.

Let's face it, though. The Yankees ended up the season in a slump and they gave no indication of coming out of it tonight. As they are right now, this Yankees team would have had a rough time against the Royals much less the Jays, assuming the Jays beat the Rangers.

Hey, 20 other teams did not even make it this far. Along with the disappointment, there is that small consolation. Yeah, right.

Yeah I am disappointed by the way the season ended also. I think I would have felt better if the Yankees didn't go in a tale spin to end the season but they did make the playoffs so there is that. This team is an odditity because how do you improve it?

I feel like we could do with a true ace somehow, a 2B, need some middle of the order presence that can hit like .300 30HR. I don't see the Yankees getting any of that. Players that need to bounce back are Pineda and Ellsbury specifically.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

Yeah I am disappointed by the way the season ended also. I think I would have felt better if the Yankees didn't go in a tale spin to end the season but they did make the playoffs so there is that. This team is an odditity because how do you improve it?

I feel like we could do with a true ace somehow, a 2B, need some middle of the order presence that can hit like .300 30HR. I don't see the Yankees getting any of that. Players that need to bounce back are Pineda and Ellsbury specifically.

Heh, you ask the question "How to improve?" as if you did not know the answer, then you provide it! If I may add to it, and with a nod to VGIJane about McCann, I humbly repeat this decree:

But I will list these well-known Yankees for whom I would be lowering the boom soon if I were Cashman:

• McCann *
• Teixeira **
• Drew **
• Young *
• Ryan **
• Sabathia **
• Nova *

* Cashman to player: "Shape up and produce next year or be gone."
** Cashman to player: "Thanks. Pack up your stuff. You're done."

Dustin Ackley may be your answer for 2B. Realistically, you should not be expecting another Robinson Cano (his bat, not his attitude).

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Heh, you ask the question "How to improve?" as if you did not know the answer, then you provide it! If I may add to it, and with a nod to VGIJane about McCann, I humbly repeat this decree:

Dustin Ackley may be your answer for 2B. Realistically, you should not be expecting another Robinson Cano (his bat, not his attitude).

In the case of McCann I would like him to raise his Avg, hitting .230 is way too low. Drew will not be with the team again as I think his contract is complete. Nova will be gone unless they can get him for dirt cheap, which I do not see happening. We have too many players under contract to make broad sweeping changes. We will see what happens with Sabathia this offseason but he could be in the bullpen next year. Our best bet would be to acquire an ace, some way. Cashman get it done!

[monkeystyxx]

I'm definitely in the camp that hates the WC game and wishes it didn't exist, but even considering that it does, I don't think it should be considered part of the post-season.

MLB considers it part of the post-season and hypes it to high heaven because of that. It really shouldn't be. If we have to have it, it should be treated like a playoff at the end of the regular season, with the winner going to the post season. Then, in theory, people would be less up in arms when they lose. Especially - as with the Yankees, and tonight more than likely my Pirates - when they're the team that should by rights have qualified but are now eliminated. I'm sure Houston and Chicago are delighted that the wild card game exists this season, no complaints from them.

Really annoys me though that after playing 162 games, MLB decided "y'know what, we'll give the team that finishes fifth in the league another chance, for no particular reason other than making more money. 162 games wasn't enough to decide if they're good enough or not".

Last year everyone was up in arms because both WC teams made the WS. But at least both WC winners that year were the teams that would've gone through anyway. KC finished a game ahead of Oakland, and the Giants beat the Pirates based on head-to-head results. Then both won their wild card games. So order was effectively restored.

Can you imagine the uproar if the 2015 world series is the Astros vs. the Cubs? I mean, not just because it's the Astros vs. the Cubs, but because it's the two teams who 'least deserved' to be there. The Cubs finished THIRD in their division, and if they do get to the world series, would've played both of the top two in their own division again. They'd get all the way to the NLCS without playing a team outside their own division. That just seems silly.

Should be division winners and the next best team overall.

Ok, rant over. You can have your Yankees thread back now.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

I'm definitely in the camp that hates the WC game and wishes it didn't exist, but even considering that it does, I don't think it should be considered part of the post-season.

MLB considers it part of the post-season and hypes it to high heaven because of that. It really shouldn't be. If we have to have it, it should be treated like a playoff at the end of the regular season, with the winner going to the post season. Then, in theory, people would be less up in arms when they lose. Especially - as with the Yankees, and tonight more than likely my Pirates - when they're the team that should by rights have qualified but are now eliminated. I'm sure Houston and Chicago are delighted that the wild card game exists this season, no complaints from them.

Really annoys me though that after playing 162 games, MLB decided "y'know what, we'll give the team that finishes fifth in the league another chance, for no particular reason other than making more money. 162 games wasn't enough to decide if they're good enough or not".

Last year everyone was up in arms because both WC teams made the WS. But at least both WC winners that year were the teams that would've gone through anyway. KC finished a game ahead of Oakland, and the Giants beat the Pirates based on head-to-head results. Then both won their wild card games. So order was effectively restored.

Can you imagine the uproar if the 2015 world series is the Astros vs. the Cubs? I mean, not just because it's the Astros vs. the Cubs, but because it's the two teams who 'least deserved' to be there. The Cubs finished THIRD in their division, and if they do get to the world series, would've played both of the top two in their own division again. They'd get all the way to the NLCS without playing a team outside their own division. That just seems silly.

Should be division winners and the next best team overall.

Ok, rant over. You can have your Yankees thread back now.

See I like the wild card game because it rewards divison winners.
I remember a few years ago the Yankees were in first and did not care about winning the divison because they wanted to rest starters. Tampa won the divison but the Yankees went further because they basically "forfeit" the divison to Tampa. Wildcard teams should be punished, for not winning the divison. After 162 games there is nothing worse than to win 100 games and then play a 89 win wildcard team with the only advantage you have over them is home field advantage. I do agree with you though that is should not be a playoff game, more of an elimination game. Nothing worse when they credit a team with winning a "series" after the wild card game, and then the team than loses in the LDS can be said to have not won a post-season series.

[monkeystyxx]

I don't think I understand your argument?

The only 'punishment' for winning the Wildcard game currently is that you have to play one extra game, and you have to play the division winner with the best record in the xLDS.

The only thing that would change if you didn't have the wildcard game would be the lack of the 'extra game'. I'm not really sure that after a 162 game season, playing one more game is going to ruin a team's chances in the xLDS...

You'd still have the same seedings; team with best record plays the wildcard, the other two division winners play each other. You just wouldn't have another team trying to shoehorn themselves into the post season via a one-game lottery (or even worse, a one-game series that you're likely to win because you have one awesome starter and the rest suck, vs. the other team who have 3/4 very good but not amazing starters).

I'm not sure where your 'advantage' really comes from?

And your Rays example doesn't make much sense either. If the Yankees hadn't 'forfeited' the division win, Tampa would've had to play the statistically-better Twins rather than the Rangers. So it makes sense that if they couldn't beat the Rangers, they won't have beaten the Twins, on paper, either.

And the Yankees swept the Twins series 3-0. It's not like the extra game they would've had to play in a wildcard playoff would've ruined their slim chances. I get the idea of punishing a team for not winning the division though. The idea being that if you forfeit the division title there's a chance you might not even get to the post season. But as I said... the Rays would've had a tougher opponent if the Yankees didn't do that, so I'm not sure it really would've helped.

Also when your team would've comfortably won any other division in the league, that 'punishing you for not winning the division' is kinda hard to agree with, but... y'know... fair enough.

[knightdreamer2k]

In thinking about it more though I do see a potential flaw in the 1 game playoff being that a team with a cy young hopeful has the advantage always over what could be considered a more balanced team. Take Pittsburgh for instance and they could be a more balanced team but with Chicagl able to throughout Arrieta it could be a moot point. It brings up the whole 95 win wild card team vs 85 win team with the edge going to whoever has the best Ace. Only time will tell I guess.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

I don't think I understand your argument?

The only 'punishment' for winning the Wildcard game currently is that you have to play one extra game, and you have to play the division winner with the best record in the xLDS.

The only thing that would change if you didn't have the wildcard game would be the lack of the 'extra game'. I'm not really sure that after a 162 game season, playing one more game is going to ruin a team's chances in the xLDS...

You'd still have the same seedings; team with best record plays the wildcard, the other two division winners play each other. You just wouldn't have another team trying to shoehorn themselves into the post season via a one-game lottery (or even worse, a one-game series that you're likely to win because you have one awesome starter and the rest suck, vs. the other team who have 3/4 very good but not amazing starters).

I'm not sure where your 'advantage' really comes from?

I get the idea of punishing a team for not winning the division (though when your team would've comfortably won any other division in the league, that's kinda hard to agree with, but... y'know... fair enough ), but there's only so much you can do.

In 2010 the Yanks were to go the next road because they rested their starters. Tampa won out, the Yanks intentionaly did not compete at the end.
A 1 game playoff forces a team to burn a starter so that Houston ace whose name I will not speak of won't pitch game 1. A balanced team I felt could be at a disadvantage in a 5 game series against a team with a good 1-2 punch at the top of the rotation. The 1 game playoff takes that away.

[VarsityGIJane]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I have contacted Cashman and told him about you. Expect at PM from him.

Haha very funny.

Also, that wildcard game though. Man... disappointing to be honest. It was as if we had no energy. And it's not like it was a blowout either. I'm not even mad at the pitching. We just couldn't hit. Sigh.

Well, I'm going for the Rangers now, since I'm in Texas, they're playing the Jays now, and don't really have anything against them in general.

Also, I see a comment about Cano. If I remember correctly, wasn't he benched at some point in the past for not hustling to first? Like I wouldn't call him a clubhouse cancer, but at the same time I wouldn't call him a team leader. Low work ethic category, but great performer.