FanDuel - WFBC

October 19, 2012

Detroit 8, New York 1: Made-to-order rout of Yankees sends Tigers to 11th World Series : The Tigers won their 11th AL pennant and returned to the World Series for the first time since 2006 by defusing the powerful Yankees in inconceivable fashion.

If you subtract the four runs Jose Valverde gave up in Game 1, the Tigers limited the Yankees to two runs in four games.

posted by tommytrump to baseball at 07:39 AM - 20 comments

I'm beginning to wonder if the real story of the ALCS is not the collapse of the Yankees but the emergence of the Tigers. They steamrolled over New York and have a monster waiting to take the mound.

posted by rcade at 08:53 AM on October 19

I don't know. The Yankee batters didn't exactly cover themselves in glory during the Orioles series, either.

posted by Jugwine at 09:29 AM on October 19

Rooting for the Tigers, I still did not want to see the Yankees go down meekly. Rather see them put up a fight.

I think that's because I first started watching them in the mid to late 1960's when they had become mediocre and fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It was pretty numbing to watch at times.

posted by beaverboard at 10:36 AM on October 19

I'm beginning to wonder if the real story of the ALCS is not the collapse of the Yankees but the emergence of the Tigers.

On one side of the fence: as in every season, the Yankees put themselves on a really tall pedestal, and of course the media is going to cover their fall from said pedestal as well as offer opinions on how the fall happened. As long as there's a pro baseball team in the Bronx that isn't a World Champion, we'll go through this every year.

On the other side of the fence: I agree, the Tigers were simply the better team anyway; I doubt the Yankees firing on all cylinders could've gotten past them. I'd like to see the Cardinals finish off the Giants because a Tigers-Cardinals Series promises to be fantastic.

posted by NerfballPro at 01:07 PM on October 19

If there is a Tigers/Cardinals series, it will mean the team with the least wins to qualify for the AL playoffs will face the team with the least wins to qualify for the NL playoffs.

posted by grum@work at 01:31 PM on October 19

Which oddly... one reason I hate about the new WC format is how much it penalizes the WC teams. Yet this year, the Cardinals had to get in on the WC playoff, and are now one win from the World Series. As much as I'd hate to see them repeat (they're the Yankees West, after all), you can't say they didn't work damned hard to get there- and without Pujols, which I'm sure the fans and franchise of St. Louis has been quietly relishing.

posted by hincandenza at 03:01 PM on October 19

If there is a Tigers/Cardinals World Series, it will mark the third time in the last 4 World Series trips for the Tigers in which they have faced the Cardinals (the others being 2006 and 1968, broken up by the Padres in 1984) and the fourth time overall (the other being 1934).

posted by holden at 03:20 PM on October 19

If you subtract the four runs Jose Valverde gave up in Game 1, the Tigers limited the Yankees to two runs in four games.
I was wondering just how bad the Yankees hitting was, and found this:
The Tigers held the Yankees to a .157 team batting average in the ALCS, the second-lowest total among 172 teams that have competed in the LCS since 1969. Only the 1969 Minnesota Twins (.155) posted a lower team batting average in the LCS.
So that streak-breaking Cano hit in the 9th is the only thing that kept them from the worst overall. And as Jugwine points out, even if you include the ALDS that they won, their team batting average rises to a whopping .188... which is the worst overall average for a team in post-season history (minimum 7 games). Which makes their team ERA of 2.76 pretty much a wasted effort.

Of course, under Girardi rules, the O's actually had a homer in that game 5, and would have won the series, so...

posted by hincandenza at 08:29 PM on October 19

It's difficult to believe the Tigers, with the best pitcher on the planet, and the best hitter on the planet, took this long to look good.

The Yankees fascinate me. The last few years they've been dominant during the regulars season, yet going into each post season I don't think many people gave them a chance. My theory is that the Yankees have a roster full of great hitters on the down side of their career. So during the year, especially against weaker pitching and teams (though this is true of most good teams), at least a few of those hitters are hot, and they dominate. But once they reach the playoffs they're beaten down and tired after 162 games, and look it. And now they're facing better teams that only use their best pitching. I'm probably wrong, but it's all I got.

And that's why I disagree when I hear the Yankees don't need to do much because hey, they led the league in runs scored. I think without changes chances are 2013 will end be much like 2012.

Also, in 2009 the Yankees traded Austin Jackson and Phil Coke to Detroit for Curtis Granderson. Detroit also got Max Scherzer from the Diamond Backs in the trade.

Curtis Granderson: 0-11 in ALCS

Jackson: 6-for-17, three extra-base hits, Game 4 home run

Coke: 5 2/3 shutout innings, two saves

Scherzer: no-hit the Yankees for five innings of Game 4 and struck out 10 in his 5 2/3 innings of work

Brutal.

posted by justgary at 09:19 AM on October 20

So we have comments being deleted now? Sox fans want to pile on the Yankees because they lost in the ALCS after winning 95 games, speculating how they win games against weaker teams and pitching during the regular season, when the team with the third highest payroll in the game finishes 26 games back, yet the Yankees are still the ones supposedly crumbling?

Spectacular.

posted by dyams at 04:43 PM on October 20

Sox fans want to pile on the Yankees because they lost in the ALCS after winning 95 games, speculating how they win games against weaker teams and pitching during the regular season

Being a Red Sox fan doesn't preclude you discussing the Yankees. I gave my honest opinion on what I see as the Yankees problem, in a thread about the Yankees. I have no idea how you could have a problem with that. We have a rule against trash talking, not honest critique.

We've taken steps to prevent trash talking, mainly because of Yankee threads (the thread is still in the Locker Room). Honest links and discussion is not the same thing as trash talking. The Yankees lost in the playoffs. I gave my opinion on why. That's not piling on. That's what we do here. That's the only thing we do here.

I've given my opinion many times on what's wrong with the Red Sox, in Red Sox threads where they belong (one in which you expressed your extreme glee at the Red Sox demise). Again, discussing why the Yankees went from a 95 win team to being swept in the playoffs is a legitimate discussion. Trash talking is not. I'm not sure why you can't tell the difference.

posted by justgary at 04:58 PM on October 20

Yankee discussion has been about payroll, spending, horrible play, and the demise they suposedly face now that they lost in the American League Championship Series. My comment was meant to point out how another high (and poor) spending team in the same division is currently out-Yankeeing the Yankees. Throw the Phillies in there too, if you want to include poor play of the top spenders in baseball. But as bad as things are for the Yankees, they can only fall so far in their division.

posted by dyams at 05:33 PM on October 20

Wait, there was a deleted comment?

Argh.... *sigh*.

posted by hincandenza at 06:19 PM on October 20

My comment was meant to point out how another high (and poor) spending team in the same division is currently out-Yankeeing the Yankees.

Yep, the reason we're not talking about the Red Sox is because they were last in the division. They have more problems than the Yankees. I don't think anyone would deny that.

My comment was meant to point out how another high (and poor) spending team in the same division is currently out-Yankeeing the Yankees.

I think you're taking my comments as an insult to the Yankees. I can not be a Yankees fan and still discuss their situation.

My point, again, is not that the Yankees are doomed. There seems to be two thoughts when it comes to the Yankees. One, their offense simply went cold at the wrong time, so there's not much that should be done. Or, the offense going cold points to a bigger problem.

I simply don't believe the Yankees should stand pat. I think they should look to improve, though I really have no idea how. Because while luck (everyone going cold at the same time) certainly had something to do with it, next year they will all be a year older, with Jeter coming off an injury.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe next year the same lineup tears through the playoffs. But I think they'd be foolish to take that chance, when they have the capability to shake things up.

posted by justgary at 07:52 PM on October 20

I've been frustrated by the Yankees performance in the playoffs, and I'm angry at A-Rod's attitude and approach to things. I'd love to see him sent elsewhere, but it likely won't happen. That being said, he can still, if healthy, be a decent, not great, player.

I do get defensive, though, when listening to talk from all over seeming to assume the Yankees are in horrible trouble. They're aging and have holes, but are still capable of competing and winning. I definitely think they'll look to improve, though.

Their horrible hitting, especially versus Detroit, seemed to be a case of contagious slumping. Nobody in the lineup could get anything going and light a spark for them. I've honestly never seen anything like it.

posted by dyams at 09:44 PM on October 20

There are many here in the New England area who are enjoying the seemingly easy elimination of the Yankees by Detroit, blaming it on a team that is ready to collapse from age. They did seem rather less than their usual selves, but to say they are on a steep decline is rather an over statement. Some of the usual good performers weren't. They had Jeter's injury, A-Rod's ineffectiveness - both problems perhaps age-related - and Swisher's slump. Is this decline or coincidence? Cano forgot how to hit, but I would hardly say he was in decline. The same could be said for Mark Teixeira, although he was not horrible in the series, merely disappointing. He too might have been a bit slowed by injury. No, the Yankees' problems were the confluence of a lot of things. Perhaps it was Murphy's Law showing up in baseball. It was a bad performance, but not one that was due to "Father Time".

This having been said, Yankees do have some problems to face for next season and for continuing years. They are not getting any younger. Their starting pitching was not great, particularly late in the season, although their bullpen did well. How will Jeter recover from what is a very serious injury? Will A-Rod find a fountain of youth that does not involve banned substances? This last was not a snark, rather a comment that he is not likely to be a lot better in the future unless he is dumb enough to take such a risk. Dumb, he is not. I heard today that C. C. Sabbathia has made an appointment with Dr. James Andrews. He has reported that his elbow was bothering him between his 2 playoff starts, and "it's something I've never felt before". Thus, NYY will have to look hard at reinforcing their starting pitching. The real difficulty is the salary structure of the team. It's high, and signing top notch free agents (who are few this year) will not come cheap. Further, they do not have a lot of minor league talent that is close to making the next level. Thus, trades will be problematic.

One reason Red Sox fans feel that their team is in better shape than Yankees is the money situation. Thanks to the Dodgers, Boston was able to move a veritable truck load of salary. They now have a golden chance to build a team using some mid-level free agent signings, using some of the youngsters from AAA, and hoping that what's left of their starting rotation will be better than last year. I'm a Boston fan, but I'm not too optimistic for the short term. 2013 won't show much improvement in final standings, but will be better in the won-lost department. What will be significant is how well they can develop the younger players, how fast some of the AA players can move through the system, and how they can put together a couple of more starters to go with Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and Lackey.

I'm not celebrating the Yankees' demise. I will not be serving as the Lay Eucharistic Minister at the funeral. Rather, I'm looking into my crystal ball and seeing the Yankees ahead of Boston in the standings, watching them making the post-season, but once again coming up short of the World Series. Any team that so consistently makes the playoffs is not in decline. When they can no longer replace their veterans with competent younger players, then I will say they have declined. I will not hold my breath waiting for it.

posted by Howard_T at 09:59 PM on October 20

Agreed, Howard_T. Well said. While there was a hint of trash talk to my deleted statement, my meaning is that quite a few of the biggest spenders in major league baseball run the risk of their big investments going bad. The Tigers will likely encounter this towards the middle of Fielder's deal when he's approaching 550 pounds. For right now, though, nobody cares. When A-rod was driving in 150-plus runs, people weren't real concerned for the Yankees either. The Phillies were the toast of baseball when Lee and Halladay were money in the bank, but now that Howard is closer to the scrap heap, not so much.

It's impressive when the lower-payroll teams are able to succeed with young, cheap talent, but for every Tampa, there are the KCs and Pittsburghs that can't quite get there.

Money can often get teams to the playoffs, but it also ensures that failing to win the World Series will lead to far more panic and criticism.

posted by dyams at 10:32 AM on October 21

It's impressive when the lower-payroll teams are able to succeed with young, cheap talent, but for every Tampa, there are the KCs and Pittsburghs that can't quite get there.

And where would you rather live KC? Pittsburg? Or Tampa?

/rhetorical question

posted by Folkways at 03:45 PM on October 21

I do get defensive, though, when listening to talk from all over seeming to assume the Yankees are in horrible trouble. They're aging and have holes, but are still capable of competing and winning. I definitely think they'll look to improve, though.

The Yankees still have a hell of a lot of talent. I think after this year, they have more question marks than usual, but far less than the Red Sox. The Red Sox have a clean slate, but that's meaningless unless they make good decisions, and its been a while since they've done that. I'm sure they'll (NY) be fine, and chances are in the playoffs again next year. When that happens it will be interesting to see how they do when compared to this year. The Yankees are never boring.

As far as A-Rod, there were some even at signing that questioned the length of the contract. But in fairness to the Yankees, I don't think they thought he'd be this injury plagued, nor that the PEDs would put a downer on the career HR chase. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can afford better than other teams to sign players to long contracts knowing they're going to get less for their money at the end. But I think even the top spenders are rethinking that strategy.

posted by justgary at 12:13 AM on October 22

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.