I watched it a bunch of times, I am pretty sure that Gleyber's throw was close to where it should be and it was not thrown too hard for how close it was, but somehow IKF did not react at all until it was too late. You know I am going to say this but I think there is a good chance that Peraza turns the DP there, fitting that yet another bad personnel deployment decision cost them the last game (IMO obv).So who fucked that up? IKF? Gleyber? Both?
I see the error was given to Gleyber, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Thanks, guys. I just got too old this season. Knew it in April. Too old to really put in the time you need to be a good fan. I went to bed on this game in the fifth inning. I will be back next year, God willing.Good season, but lots of potential for better things that just didn't happen. Look forward to the discussions about the future.
Terry, it was great seeing you around again.
That's how I saw it too, and I immediately thought of your prediction about SS defense.I watched it a bunch of times, I am pretty sure that Gleyber's throw was close to where it should be and it was not thrown too hard for how close it was, but somehow IKF did not react at all until it was too late. You know I am going to say this but I think there is a good chance that Peraza turns the DP there, fitting that yet another bad personnel deployment decision cost them the last game (IMO obv).
Lots of folks here seem to think that is how one defines success.
Hi, Terry. I had been wondering about you; want to join the chorus of welcome backs. As for too old: tell me about it. I turned 80 this month, and when I fell asleep the NYY were ahead. That's par for the course for us oldsters---not the score, the falling asleep part. My husband, Yankees fan, is napping this morning.Thanks, guys. I just got too old this season. Knew it in April. Too old to really put in the time you need to be a good fan. I went to bed on this game in the fifth inning. I will be back next year, God willing.
I'll chime in too, Terry. Always enjoyed your posts, including back to another message board whose name I can't remember! Be well.Thanks, guys. I just got too old this season. Knew it in April. Too old to really put in the time you need to be a good fan. I went to bed on this game in the fifth inning. I will be back next year, God willing.
I don't know what this post means, I do know that making the ALCS is not an unsuccessful season and anyone viewing the MLB season through the prism of 1 winner and 29 losers is pretty silly.Lots of folks here seem to think that is how one defines success.
I want a world series. Full stop. I'll even take MAKING the world series. I don't care if we can call the team a successful 2nd best team in the AL and a top 10% team in baseball. If you find enjoyment in that, no issues from me, but you're trying to convince others that just making the ALCS is great. I would feel the same way if we make the world series 5 times and get ousted 5 times. Not good enough. The team is due for a title and it doesn't take mortgaging the future to try to tweak a few things as compared to running it back w/ the ALCS roster give or take a prospect.13 seasons now since they won the WS:
10 playoff seasons, 3 times missing the playoffs (84/84/85 wins in those three).
5 ALCS losses
3 ALDS losses
2 wild card losses
Is that ideal? Obviously not. Is that 'unsuccessful'? Again, to me, pretty obviously not.
I love you, man, but all of this is stupid. Everyone wants to win a World Series, and no one is 'due' for a title.I want a world series. Full stop. I'll even take MAKING the world series. I don't care if we can call the team a successful 2nd best team in the AL and a top 10% team in baseball. If you find enjoyment in that, no issues from me, but you're trying to convince others that just making the ALCS is great. I would feel the same way if we make the world series 5 times and get ousted 5 times. Not good enough. The team is due for a title and it doesn't take mortgaging the future to try to tweak a few things as compared to running it back w/ the ALCS roster give or take a prospect.
This is what I was referring to on the other thread.I love you, man, but all of this is stupid. Everyone wants to win a World Series, and no one is 'due' for a title.
And they are constantly tweaking, in minor and in major ways. They'd be in a decidedly worse position right now without that Montgomery/Bader deal, for instance.
Both positions are not actually positions, no team is aiming for either of these, there's no actual choice. The choice is only in retrospect.This is what I was referring to on the other thread.
some folks are happy being competitive every year and keeping it interesting
other folks don’t care if the team is last four or five years in a row, if there is a title every five or six years.
we had a thread/poll about this on the main board a couple months ago. More folks wanted the consistently competitive without so many titles than the alternative.
both positions are valid, IMHO
True. But as a fan there are two camps of what makes you more satisfied. Although a team could aim for that by loading up one year with short term, high priced players, and then bumble along for the next few with a resetBoth positions are not actually positions, no team is aiming for either of these, there's no actual choice. The choice is only in retrospect.
This applies to the Celtics and Patriots too, right?By my math, there have been 117 World Series, with the Yankees winning 27. There are currently 30 teams. For all 30 to win 27 titles, it would take 810 years. 90 of those wins have already happened (117 - 27), so 720 more years.
So yes, the Yankees are due for a title somewhere around 2744. I'm good with that.
Tweaking in minor and major ways is not the issue. It’s the decisions being made that are. You’ll be happy to remember I’m not running the franchise because if I were, I’m with Francesa, complete overhaul. Fresh eyes, fresh assessment, goodbye to Cashman and Boone. The biggest hesitation I would have in letting Cashman go is that Hal is the one picking a new GM.I love you, man, but all of this is stupid. Everyone wants to win a World Series, and no one is 'due' for a title.
And they are constantly tweaking, in minor and in major ways. They'd be in a decidedly worse position right now without that Montgomery/Bader deal, for instance.
I'm trying to only make it sound like winning 90+ games isn't some big whooping achievement for this team. We do it basically every year. So do the other top teams. The difference is they win in October and we don't. I get absolutely no extra enjoyment for winning 105 games over 92 and then get ousted in the ALDS or ALCS. There's no difference for me.You (and all of the other criticism today) make it sound like the team went 70-92, as opposed to having the second best run differential in MLB and winning the division and making the ALCS despite a flood of injuries. The downside to firing Cashman IMO is way way greater than the upside.
The Astros and Dodgers haven't been top teams for 15 years."I'm trying to only make it sound like winning 90+ games isn't some big whooping achievement for this team. We do it basically every year. So do the other top teams. The difference is they win in October and we don't. I get absolutely no extra enjoyment for winning 105 games over 92 and then get ousted in the ALDS or ALCS. There's no difference for me. "
But do they, really? I'm sure you'd consider the Dodgers and the Astros to be among "other top teams." In the past 15 years, they've won exactly as many World Series as the Yankees.
So, is Boston’s approach more viable? Build up, tear down, finish last five times, get high draft picks, rebuild, etc. Contrast that with the Yankees’ not finishing under .500 in 30 years.That's fair, but both of those teams have been serious players for much of the time since the last Yankees WS.
I made a statement in an earlier post that if the Yankees made the WS 5 times and lost 5 times, I would have a big problem with that.So, is Boston’s approach more viable? Build up, tear down, finish last five times, get high draft picks, rebuild, etc. Contrast that with the Yankees’ not finishing under .500 in 30 years.
What do Sox fans prefer? What do Yankee fans think of the organization’s philosophy?
Houston did a lot of tanking a decade ago to build its current mini-dynasty in the AL.
Tanking is not a new concept and should not be construed as selling out on your fan base.
Subject to change in five years, of courseFor Boston, I would trade their last 10 years with our last 10 years but - and not trying to start an argument here - I wouldn't take their next 5 years for our next 5 years.
Personally, Boston's approach would drive me crazy. I couldn't go two or three years with a completely unwatchable last place team. I need to see meaningful games, all summer, every year. But that's just me, YMMV.So, is Boston’s approach more viable? Build up, tear down, finish last five times, get high draft picks, rebuild, etc. Contrast that with the Yankees’ not finishing under .500 in 30 years.
What do Sox fans prefer? What do Yankee fans think of the organization’s philosophy?
Houston did a lot of tanking a decade ago to build its current mini-dynasty in the AL.
Tanking is not a new concept and should not be construed as selling out on your fan base.
What’s funny is Boston has not finished last two years in a row since who knows when. Early 1960s. They perfected the crash under Bobby V in 2012 and then won the WS the next year.Personally, Boston's approach would drive me crazy. I couldn't go two or three years with a completely unwatchable last place team. I need to see meaningful games, all summer, every year. But that's just me, YMMV.
There was a poll about this on the main board in the latter part of the seasonSo, is Boston’s approach more viable? Build up, tear down, finish last five times, get high draft picks, rebuild, etc. Contrast that with the Yankees’ not finishing under .500 in 30 years.
What do Sox fans prefer? What do Yankee fans think of the organization’s philosophy?
Houston did a lot of tanking a decade ago to build its current mini-dynasty in the AL.
Tanking is not a new concept and should not be construed as selling out on your fan base.
Oh, I completely agree. I'm just saying I'll take the championships because I bet the losing season are a distant memory aside from the most recent one.I think the Red Sox won some championships in spite of their boom and bust cycle and front office turnover, and not because of it.
Interesting stuff, Lose. 60-40 in favor of winning championships over consistently having winning seasons. Sounds about right.There was a poll about this on the main board in the latter part of the season
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/stake-your-claim-championships-or-consistent-competing.37498/