Finding The Angles

Since Robinson Cano fielded Shane Victorino's ground ball last night and threw to Mark Teixeira to record the final out of Game 6, giving the New York Yankees their 27th World Series, I've been thinking about finding an angle. This is a post that many (I hope) expected I'd write, and I didn't want to let anyone down.

But I had nothing.

It's all been said before--how great of a group this is, how A-Rod finally forgot about the calendar, how the Fab 4 returned for one more, how they won one more for the Boss, how the new stadium fit like a glove--

All old news.

I posted a picture of the trophy celebration and figured that singular expression of joy would be enough to get across my excitement over the fact that the team I love so dearly are once again on top of the world.

But writers--we have this thing.

We have to write.

We wake up wanting to write, and if we don't, we go to bed wishing we had.

And so the itch was not scratched.

--

Around 10:15 this morning, I tweeted:

Does 2 WS victories, 4 AL Pennants, 4 ALDS appearances, and 1 ALCS appearance officially make the Yankees the team of the 2000's?

My gut response was, of course, yes. I followed up that tweet with:

That was a rhetorical question, by the way--of course it does. Write a book about it, Buster Olney!

And I thought that would be the end of it.

But then, a friend commented that he was pretty sure that the Yankees held the best overall record of the decade, another jewel in the "Best of the 2000's" crown.

It wasn't enough for me to assume he was right--I needed to know. Baseball provides a healthy outlet for those of us with a slight dusting of the OCD. I love finding and compiling numbers, and when those numbers are linked to athletics, well, color me a shade of terrific.

So I started digging and adding and then I found some more stuff and well, I found my angle.

Let me tell you why the Yankees are the team of the 2000's.

--

A couple of things to remember:

-I put all of this together in about 2 hours, while at work. I'm sure I made some oversights, bad calculations, and mistakes. My bad.
-I am a Yankees fan.
-I have a fierce belief that the American League is vastly superior to the National League, and that the American League East is the toughest division in the league.

--

So what I looked at first was 2000-2009 records. There was no convenient spot for this, so doing it for every team was not an option, or really necessary for that matter. I decided to go with the:

New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Los Angeles Angels
St. Louis Cardinals
Philadelphia Phillies
Los Angeles Dodgers
New York Mets

Yes, I know the AL Central isn't there. The Twins, Tigers, Royals, Indians, and White Sox should win more. Moving on.

Here's what the record breakdown came out to:

New York Yankees: 965 & 651
Boston Red Sox: 920 & 699
St. Louis Cardinals: 913 & 706
Los Angeles Angels: 900 & 720
Los Angeles Dodgers: 862 & 758
Philadelphia Phillies: 850 & 769
New York Mets: 815 & 803

In the interest of time--and my sanity--I decided that any further analysis should be limited to the top 4, and it seemed fitting that that decision limited the group to 900 wins or more.

What I looked at next was the outcomes of each season for the four teams:

New York Yankees
2000: WS Win
2001: WS Loss
2002: ALDS Loss (Lost to the Angels #1)
2003: WS Loss
2004: ALCS Loss (Lost to the Red Sox)
2005: ALDS Loss (Lost to the Angels #2)
2006: ALDS Loss
2007: ALDS Loss (Wild Card Team)
2008: Did not make the playoffs
2009: WS Win

Boston Red Sox
2000: Did not make the playoffs
2001: Did not make the playoffs
2002: Did not make the playoffs
2003: ALCS Loss (Wild Card Team--Lost to the Yankees in ALCS)
2004: WS Win (Wild Card Team--Beat the Yankees down 3-0)
2005: ALDS Loss (Wild Card Team)
2006: Did not make the playoffs
2007: WS Win (ALE Winner)
2008: ALCS Loss (Wild Card Team)
2009: ALDS Loss (Wild Card Team)

St. Louis Cardinals
2000: NLCS Loss
2001: NLDS Loss
2002: NLCS Loss
2003: Did not make the playoffs
2004: WS Loss
2005: NLCS Loss
2006: WS Win
2007: Did not make the playoffs
2008: Did not make the playoffs
2009: ALDS Loss

Los Angeles Angels
2000: Did not make the playoffs
2001: Did not make the playoffs
2002: WS Win (Wild Card Team--Beat the Yankees in the ALDS)
2003: Did not make the playoffs
2004: ALDS Loss (Lost to the Red Sox #1)
2005: ALCS Loss (Beat the Yankees in the ALDS)
2006: Did not make the playoffs
2007: ALDS Loss (Lost to the Red Sox #2)
2008: ALDS Loss (Lost to the Red Sox #3)
2009: ALCS Loss (Lost to the Yankees)

So what can we take from all of this?

-The Angels are the only team of the 4 that did not make it to more than 1 World Series.

-The Yankees missed the playoffs only once. The Cardinals--3 times. The Red Sox and The Angels? 4.

-The Yankees won 4 Pennants--nobody else won more than 2.

-Of the Red Sox 6 playoff appearances, 5 were as the Wild Card team. The Yankees and Angels, only once. The Cardinals--never.

-While the numbers keep the top 3 teams (Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals) close, for me, it comes down to the Yankees and Red Sox.

The Cardinals play in a clinically weak National League Central, while the Red Sox and Yankees faced each other over 200 times during 2000-2009, and that's not taking into account the seasons filled with match-ups against the Blue Jays, Orioles, and Rays, all 3 of which are teams that are far better than the records account for.

Deciding between the Yankees and the Red Sox is hard. While the numbers sway towards the Yankees, it's impossible to account for what the 2004 ALCS meant to the rivalry. That Sunday night, coming off a 19-8 victory, nobody in the world thought the Red Sox had any chance of coming back.

And they did.

I still get physically sick thinking about it, actually.

Now, I think that the Yankees may have finally gotten back on equal footing, mentally, but they are nowhere near the dominant older brother that they once were when the decade began.

That being said, the numbers and the immeasurables are clear (to me, at least):

The Yankees are the best team of the 2000's.

Let the arguing begin.

--

No wrap-up is complete without casting an eye towards the future. Here's some random thoughts:

-The debate has already begun about who should be brought back for 2010--Matsui or Damon. Matsui now has a WS MVP under his belt, one that he deserved. But Matsui went through long stretches this year where he didn't hit for shit.

Damon certainly brings more athletic prowess to the table, although it wouldn't be a shock to see his defense fall off rather quickly (as if it has too far to go). And the reality is that once Damon's legs go, he'll be worthless in the field. My answer is this:

Don't sign either of them.

The Yankees want to get younger. They want talent. They love big names and big headlines.

There's only one logical choice:

Matt Holliday.

I know. I know.

The rich keep getting richer!

Just spend more money!

To the naysayers, I'll paraphrase Patrick Roy:

"I'm sorry, but I can't hear you. My 27 World Championships are clogging up my ears."

Seriously though, Holliday is the answer. The Yankees have said that they are not looking to expand payroll for 2010. Except, that was before they were the Defending World Series Champions. Matsui and Damon made a combined $26 million dollars in 2009. I would think that Holliday, who will certainly be overpaid, would come here for less than that. It's overestimating, but I'd say $20 million/per is the magic number.

Holliday is 29. He's a doubles machine--since '06, he has 45, 50, 38, and 39. He is the perfect add-on player--a guy who will thrive at being the third or fourth (or fifth) best player on the Yankees. Bonus--he plays the position that Damon currently inhabits, except about a million times better. Best of all, he's on record as saying that his two choices of where to go are the Yankees and the Mets. A six year/$120 million contract will wrap him up, and I believe the Yankees need to--and will--do it.

-The Yankees should re-sign Andy Pettitte. One of the main reasons I wasn't too too nervous going into Game 6 was because he was pitching. Sure, started to wonder if the 3 days rest thing would bite him, or if he was just too old, or tired, but then I remembered--

this is Andy-fucking-Pettitte.

The guy has seen it all before, and more often than not, come out on top. And he proved why once again.

The Yankees should sign him because he will be the perfect fifth starter--he'll get extra days to rest, he'll be able to rely on brains just as much as stuff, and he'll be an outstanding presence with the younger pitchers on the team, which brings me to my next point--

-The Yankees are set, pitching-wise, for the next five years. We know who's already penciled in for the 1 and 2 spots. But let's not forget--we have a pool of MLB-ready talent that includes Joba, Hughes, Wang (who won't be rushed back from injury again), and Kennedy. They will be able to get two starters from that pool, no doubt about it. In a perfect world, my choice would be Hughes and Wang, leaving Joba as the heir to Mariano and Kennedy to develop more, which means the Yankee rotation would be:

Sabbathia
Burnett
Hughes
Wang
Pettitte

Everyone made a big deal this postseason (myself included) out of the fact that the Yankees only had 3 reliable starting pitchers. Well you know what--the Phillies only had 1. Look at the group of 5 up there--you wouldn't sign up for that right now?

-The Holliday signing is important because it brings some stability to the Yankees outfield. I still believe that Melky is just good enough to trade and Gardener, as fast as he is, just can't hit on the major league level. That in mind, I would be thrilled with an outfield of Holliday/Melky/Nady with Swisher and Gardener playing slightly more than support roles. How could you not be?

--

Exhale.

Smile.

Ballgame over.

World Series over.

The--well you know how it goes.

This is why we we get sick for these guys, and their pinstriped-laundry.

And there's always more sports to watch, always more angles to pursue, but I think I'm going to sit back and enjoy this one for a bit.

I'm an unapologetic fan of the best team of the 2000's.



Itch--scratched.


More soon.

JS