Well... the Yankees were is remission for a number of years, but you never know when the big 'G' will rear it's ugly head.

If George was looking for press, he got it.
I have to guess they had not thought much about Torre's replacement. It's Shock & Awe and what do we do now?

Nice Job indeed, and I hope that those kind of thoughts and analyses are among the items considered during this powwow. Is this to say though that there is a larger element of luck involved than many people would be willing to admit involving playoff success? Players are not robots after all, so statistics can basically measure what they did and measure the probability of what they would do in a given situation.

I don't think George ever understood or cared to beyond what he likely wanted them to do. But if I argue on other fronts (birthright vs. self-made) then the board will spin wildly out of control and into the sun, so I'll just stop myself and deal with the amount of madness I can enjoy >;)

2 Players are not robots, but HAL 9000 is in charge.

NO NO NO! This team was doomed from the beginning! It lacked grit. Is there any doubt that with David Eckstein at third instead of Choke-Rod, with Darrin Erstad (the football player!) at first, and Scott Podsednik in right field, the Yankees would be sweeping their way into the world series right now?

What the Yankees need to do, in order to get better, is replace all the top OBP guys with top BFUG guys. Sure, they may not even get close to making the post-season... but once they're there? Ooo boy, once they're there!

re: Torre's possible successor ...

Has there been any consideration given to Chris Chambliss?

His name popped up all over the place in the 90s as a candidate for ML manager jobs.

Has his window of opportunity shut?

4 Darin Erstad, the Football AND Hockey player, you mean.

Don't forget Juan Pierre, one of the few non-white members of the All-Scrappy McHustle club. He always tries REALLY HARD.

Whomever the Yankees pick to manage will come in with shit all over him. If George/the FO really wanted Torre out, George literally did this in the most destructive way. I don't know what he could have done to potentially hurt the team more.

It's possible that they could replace Torre and:
... the new manager has a smooth transition
... all players who are Torre loyalists re-sign
... all players have the same/better energy next next
... all the coaches come back
... nobody resents the new manager
... nobody feels the Yankee FO is fucked up

The Yankees are letting Torre go because they want the team to be/play better, right? Under the current circumstances, what are the chances of this happening? We are using words like 'salvage' and 'damage control'. We are talking about losing 2 or 3 (Andy, Mo, Po) lifetime core Yankees.
How did this happen?

This is a little like years ago when Steinbrenner's interference created no-win situations. Now, the issue of 'who's a better manager' is not really inplay. The issue is damage control. This was such an incredibly stupid move, and letting Joe twist in the wind isn't helping.

6 Ah, but aren't Reggie Willits and Eric Byrnes now ahead of Pierre at CF on the All-Grit depth chart?

4 6 8 please. i beg you. remember that erstad was a punter. this is crucial and entirely relevant to baseball. he wore one of those single bar helmets. while playing football. "american" football. they use their hands in that one.

grit. guts. ganador.

0 While it's certainly true that winning a WS shouldn't ever be expected, there's a little flaw in that reasoning.

Supposing that a playoff series (either 5 game or 7 game) is in fact, a crapshoot, then a team should have a 50/50 shot of winning. So basically, the chances of losing a 50/50 shot four times in a row are 6.25% correct?

So losing four playoff series in a row is not statistically likely even if it is a crap shoot. It's not horribly out of whack, but it certainly isn't to be expected. Winning a WS only requires that you win three crap shoots in a row (12.5%) so that is in fact more likely than losing four series in a row.

Not that I buy into this "crap-shoot" theory you understand -- I would agree with the thinking that holds power pitching, great defense and a good closer in high regard. So basically, the reason our four in a row streak isn't that improbable is because we're building the wrong team for the PS -- it's not because we've been "unlucky."

10 Interesting hypothesis. Our bats go to sleep at inconvenient times in the post season. What is it about the nature of our hitters that leads you to believe that they are the "wrong team for the PS?" Do they do something that works well in the regular season, but doesn't hold water in the post season? What is it? Why doesn't it translate into the postseason?

10 Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads...

11 About regular season vs. postseason success. I haven't looked into it too deeply, but my guess would be that their stats get a bit padded by beating the hell out of bad pitchers. They have always been relentless against bad pitchers, but good ones often seem to hold them down a bit. Of course there are exceptions, but looking at the big picture thats what it has seemed like.

10 Even less statistically likely is winning eleven crapshoots in a row, but they did that (if only it had been twelve! Damn you DBacks!). Which I think is further evidence against the crapshoot argument.

7 as long as torre still wants to manage the yankees, which he apparently does even though he said in like 1999 that he would retire after his then-current contract was up, how could they let him go in a way that isn't messy? i don't think this is nearly as big a deal as you seem to think. pettitte played 2 years for a different team, so why does everyone think he's so devoted to joe? posada and mo aren't gonna leave. and if a new manager actually is better than joe (and i'm sure most of us agree that that is very possible), it's entirely possible that the players will put this behind them and play as well as they can.

10 0 is it power pitching, or just consistently good pitching 1-4? i don't know if pettitte, cone, wells, and duque were really power pitchers in the late 90s. they all topped out around 92. and when did we ever have great defense? and we still have a great closer, i think it's that we need an all-around great bullpen. plus i think that more contact hitters is a plus against better pitching.

15 sorry, 3 years for a different team, and it seemed even longer

15 Those Yankee teams were consistently top 5 in the league in SO. While non of them were Johanesqe. Cone is the franchise leader in k/9 and guys like Clemens, Hernandez and Pettitte were very capable of getting a SO here and there. Throw in Nelson, Stanton and MO and you have guys in the pen who get strikeouts too. I'm sure its not the only reason, but I think there is something there.

15

Yes, and thank you. I think all of this loyalty stuff is getting pretty overblown. Loyalty doesn't seem to prevent them from opting out or leveraging free agency or actually leaving the team. I'm not saying that's bad--more power to the players to get what they can. But when it comes down to it, these players will likely stay for the green, so long as the Yankees offer the right price. And you are entirely correct about there being no un-messy way out. If they fire him right off the bat, they look bad. if they wait to discuss the manager's position at their meetings (a sensible thing), they look bad for letting Torre "twist in the wind"--as if he is really suffering from the extra week or so before he knows if he will be making millions for the Yankees or another club.

Frankly, if some of these players are so devoted to Torre personally, I wonder if the best thing isn't to get of him anyway. I mean, what if decides to go all Connie Mack and keep managing until he's a million years old and clearly insane? Will the team be forced to keep him lest an aging Mo Rivera--or David Ortiz????--make public statements in his support?

As for your second part--I also agree, power pitching is not really the issue. However, the staff in those yearas did generate a lot of Ks with very few BBS, which went a long way in hiding any defensive shortcomings.

Speaking of pitching and the Steinbrenners junior, Hank has said that he will insist that Joba moves into the starting rotation next year. I don't like the invasive manner, but I do like the decision.

19 We like it now, but how about in August when Hank is demanding that Joba keep getting starts when he's already thrown 180 innings?

19 My reaction exactly when I read that yesterday.

pitching, pitching, and more pitching is the answer. The Yanks front office has been manhandled by the Red Sox management team. First they didn't get Beckett from the fire sale Marlins......... they got Pavano instead (bust of the decade!!!), and then they lost out on Dice K. We signed Rocket and extended Mussina who is clearly past his prime. Firing Torre is not the answer to our problems. Getting a #1 starter is. We are desperate for high caliber starting pitching that can be held accountable. You can't pin your hopes on #3 rotation type starters. The past season remains a dissapointment because of poor pitching performances.

20 I'm not sure one follows from the other. Hank's statement may reflect an organizational philosophy, with which Cashman is probably in full agreement: these guys should be starters. If so, it is just as likely that he understands the organizational philosophy to protect the young arms by adding limited innings per year.

I'm not sure that "we want him to start" must necessarily imply "we want him to pitch 300 innings," and it's more welcome than "we need a closer because the end of the game is more important than the beginning."

22 It was clever of the Red Sox actually to want to sign Pavano firt but get outbid by the Yankees, then fall into Beckett as their "seconf choice" (wink-wink), and equally clever of them to pay 100 million dollars for a glorified #3 starter. Now, all you have to do is show me how the FO got manhandled by losing out on Gagné.

22 Oh yeah, and the FO gets no credit for signing Pettitte. Compare Pettitte's and Dice-K's season stats, sit quietly and reflect on them, then come back and discuss.

13 I agree. Does anyone have access to some stats that we could see what the BA or runs scored or something against pitchers with a "good era" (whatever you consider a good era)?
I also think we have too many hitters that are extremely streaky (ex. Matsui, ARod) that effects PS performance.
17 18 Also agreed. While those Yanks teams did not necessarily have pure power pitchers they had guys that could shut you down in some form. Not being able to bear down and get 3rd outs and giving up so many hits/runs when they the Yanks had 2 outs against Cleveland IMO speaks to too many pitchers on the staff that can't put you away.
19 et al. While I too am happy that Joba will be starting, why is Hank involved in BB decisions - and what does he know about BB? Why are some of the papers so hard on the son-in-law Lopez's BB knowledge (it can fit in a thimble) but are not pointing out what H&H don't know about BB - they seemingly have barely been interested in the Yanks all these years?

23 Hank is already demonstrating the touch of a bull in a china shop.
Here's hoping he doesn't take a "I broke it, you pay for it" approach to the young pitchers.

26 How do we know what the Steinbrenner boys do or don't know about baseball? And what does his statement about Joba prove about his direct influence on baseball decisions? Again, his answer may simply reflect organizational philosophy, which I would expect the owner to take part in, at least to a degree.

24 so they made a mistake on Gagne. We posted and "won" Kei. Absolute scandal.......$100million for a #2/3 or $46 for a minor leaguer w/ no future value to Yanks??? As much as I dislike the Sox FO they made better choices. Beckett has payed off big time. Finally, they are still playing while we rotate on the coming and going of Torre.

28 We don't - that's my point. I don't think it is the content that has some people concerned as much as how involved he will be in the baseball decisions. If he does not in fact know much about BB, then it is certainly best he leaves those decision to BB people.

29 Touché. They screwed up Gagnee, overpaid for Dice-K, and lucked out of Pavano, and didn't sign Pettitte. But they are still playing, so they made the better decisions. No defeating that line of argument.

30 My point is that there seems to be overreaction, IMHO, to what he said. He's the owner (basically), he should have final say on any deals. What he said did not strike me as particularly intrusive or particularly problematic--indeed, the fact that he seems to be insisting on the correct course of action (again, IMO) strikes me as encouraging. So rather than wring our collective hands, let's worry about more importnat things, like how the Red Sox FO keeps manhandling the YAnkees by making so many great signings for pitchers( 29 et al : ) )

29 yes and what still concerns me is who/what will this "crack' committee come up with??..if in fact Gene Michael has influence I hope he can exercise it because the Steinbrenners (the sons because george apparently is lost in the weeds) and Cashman have a lot to answer for.

29 , 31 Let's not forget the inspired signings of Julio Lugo and J.D. Drew.

They're still playing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their decisions were right.

32 There probably is overaction because of George's history. And because the decision on whether Joba is in the rotation or in the pen is almost a pure BB decision (in comparsion to the decision on the manager which encompasses more than just BB). But if we are to move on to the Red Sox FO, maybe we can pick up Manny as a DH the next time they put him on waivers :)

Oh my god, I can't even begin to talk about why the "4 postseason washouts in a row -- what are the odds? Torre must go!" argument is wrong. Each series is an independent event. The number of series that you have won/lost in the past has no bearing on the likelihood of winning the next one. You can't say anything meaningful about the Yankees postseason record because the law of large numbers doesn't apply.

Now, you can make a better argument for the regular season with its much larger number of games. Because N (number of games) is larger, freak events (like, say, a swarm of midges) have less effect on the overall outcome. And, looking at the past decade of regular seasons, it sure looks like the Yankees have been doing well.

Now, that is all predicated on your belief that there is a set probability that the Yankees win a game, which there isn't. So it's all a big pile of bullshot.

I think that it's far more likely that everybody's rabid fixation on the Yankees winning the WS puts a lot of pressure on the team that doesn't exist during the regular season, and, feeling like they're up against the wall, they don't play the relaxed, superior baseball we've come to expect. We focus on their failures, instead of appreciating their successes.

22 29 I'm sorry, but you've got your story wrong. The Marlins sold off all their expensive players after the 2005 season. Pavano was a free agent the year before. There is absolutely no link between the two. (Matt Clement is who the Sox signed when they lost out on Pavano. He was almost as a big a bust as CP.)

And who would the Yanks have traded to get Josh Beckett? The Yanks at the time had exactly two young chips of real value: Cano and Wang. The Sox had the goods to give up, and the Yanks did not.

I agree that poor pitching has plagued the Yanks, but the farm system is now bursting with quality, young pitching. How you can evaluate the Yanks' FO and not factor that in is beyond me.

26 I don't feel like listing detailed stats, but I looked up many of the top pitchers in the league to see how they did against the Yanks. Here are some of the top pitchers who had an ERA under 3.00 against the Yanks; Halladay, Burnett, Bedard, Kazmir, Verlander, Santana, and Lackey. Those are pretty much the cream of the crop in the AL. The big names missing are Beckett, Escobar, Haren, Carmona and Blanton. Those guys, except Haren, did ok but not great.

I'm probably missing some guys, but from glancing at the numbers some of the top pitchers put up against the Yanks, I'm guessing there is some truth to them not hitting great pitching very well.

36 so it is just probability, or it's pressure/expectations? wasn't there pressure on a 114-win team to win the world series? on the team that followed it? on the next one (facing the cross-town rivals)?

it's either just probability or not. and if the problem is that there's too much pressure for the players and manager to handle, then those players and manager should be replaced.

26 Ah, you speak of consistency- the hobgoblin of straw-grasping when it comes to baseball analysis. A hitter doesn't perform when you want them to, so he's inconsistent. A pitcher doesn't always pitch 1-2-3 innings, so he's inconsistent. When it comes down to it, these terms are so vague and so untestable that they usually fail to add anything meaningful to a discussion about baseball players. They are results-based thinking, similar to the Texas Hold 'Em player who says, "I never play pocket queens; they always lose!"

To illustrate the point, here are two pitchers. One is from the infallible 1998 team which must have gotten 2 outs all the time, otherwise they'd be inconsistent pitchers, right?

Pitcher A: Overall .274/.344/.395 against
With 2 outs: .267/.354/.402

Pitcher B: Overall .265/.324/.368 against
With 2 outs: .258/.324/.339

Pitcher A is 1998 Andy Pettitte, and Pitcher B is 2007 Chien-Ming Wang. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with Wang's ability to get hitters out with two outs. If there is a way to quantify this "consistency" thing, I would love to see it, and if it at all correlates with other, more traditional metrics.

If, instead, you speak of "intangibles," which by definition cannot be measured, well then we're out of luck. Statistics are, and should be, the main method of comparing what players have done on the field when constructing a roster. If you want to throw certain players out because they don't fit the team's philosophy, then fine. But the kinds of results-based thinking suggested by classifying Matsui and A-Rod as "streaky" would be irresponsible if shared by the Yankees' front office.

36 Well put. Here's another way to look at it: since the start of the 2004 LCS (the first of the 4! consecutive series losses), th