There two popular scenarios that Yankee fans envision the team pursuing in his absence until his (estimated) May 15th return. They reflect two distinct areas of the fan base and could have ramifications in both cases. They are as follows:

First Scenario: The Yanks are limping along, unable to muster enough runs to allow their improved pitching staff to make the impact the brass had hoped for. They have a record somewhere within a few wins of .500 on either side of the ledger. Alex comes back and lengthens the lineup, puts up his usual great numbers and leads the Yanks to the playoffs. Most of these folks are younger fans who are more sabermetrically inclined.

Second Scenario: The Yankees are flourishing in his absence. Freed of Alex and all the drama that surrounds him, The Yanks play as a team, as opposed to the 24+1 group they have when A-Rod is around. Knowing they don’t have a big bat in the lineup, they do the little things needed to win games. They play the kind of Baseball the Yanks were known for in the late 90′s, when they didn’t have any big stars in the lineup, they had them on the mound. Most of these are older fans who’ve seen the team win in various configurations, some without a big hitter, and think Alex is a choker.

Which scenario will be proven right remains to be seen, but there are implications for both. If the Yanks were to struggle in his absence, the pro-Alex camp would be reinforced in their belief that he is essential to the team’s success. Opponents would be dismissive of this result, and cite the Yanks previous slow starts in recent years, but would get to see what a Yankee world without Alex would look like and be given pause.

If the Yanks were to flourish, especially in the context of previous teams slow starts, then the anti-Alex camp would become even more emboldened. That would remove any doubts they have of the team’s chances to win in a post A-Rod world. They wouldn’t just be criticizing him anymore, but actively rooting for his exit, and making that desire known on radio stations and newspapers everywhere. It would also give the anti-Alex forces in the Yankee brass (which include the GM) further ammunition in their argument for his departure from the Bronx sometime down the road. They’ll need plenty of ammo, because that exit would be very, very expensive.

Tagged with:
 

0 Responses to Pondering the absence of Alex

  1. Moshe Mandel says:

    You pretty much summed it up. Alex can never, ever win with some people. If they are losing without him, it will be his fault for selfishly getting surgery instead of playing through. If they are winning without him, they dont need him and should cut him loose somehow.

  2. StandingO'Neill says:

    A month and a half is far too small a sample size to declare Alex’s absence a good or bad thing. Even if they get off to a red hot start and Alex never coems back, I’d bet good money they’ll be missing him immensely by September. And let’s not forget Alex got off to a scorching hot start in 2007, yet the team still struggled for the first two months. Regardless of what happens, the team is way better off with Alex in the lineup.

    • Moshe Mandel says:

      Of course they are. But the concept of small sample size is not understood by all. You think the headline of the Post will be “Small Sample Size explains Yanks thriving without A-Rod?” I think you are more likely to get “Better off without him.”

  3. KGsturnz0r217 says:

    scenario 3 and most likely scenario: we flourish without him (2 weeks), then come the “Better off without-Rod” headlines, then Alex comes back and lights the world on fire like he always has.

  4. Matt K says:

    IF he flourish the first month I believe it will be becuase of the starting rotation more then anything. How great would it be to get off to a hot start??

  5. Yeah, I think the Yankees can win without Arod, but only because they have a sick rotation. As long as they stay healthy they can win. Of course it will be easier once Alex is back.

    • Steve S. says:

      Of course they can. The Angels were 10th in Runs scored and won 100 games last year. The Rays were 9th in Runs scored last year and won the Pennant. They were #2 and #3 in team ERA.

  6. BillyBall says:

    Great article. This is fast becoming the best Yankee blog. I place my hat with the older crowd that feels that without A-Rod your gonna see a more fun product, more of the old ways of generating runs, less of waiting for A-Rod to strike out in clutch spots, and less drama. The team may even be more relaxed regardless of the new three additions breaking in! This should be fun! I just hope the folks over at River ave Blues do not secretly hope that the Yankees just stay above water until there beloved A-Rod returns to put up big non clutch numbers! I always pressed on that site it’s about the team and not the player! For some odd reason it get’s overlooked.

  7. oldpep says:

    You cite one of the misconceptions of the late 90s teams: that they played more ‘small ball’. The Yankees of 2001-2005 actually had more sacrifice bunts (and I’m pretty sure SB-too lazy to look it up again) than the 96-2000 versions.

    I think the people complaining about Arod are going to remain the same size and volume no matter what happens. His supporters will likewise stay in his camp as well.
    What’s funny about the ‘do the little things right’ crowd is that they usually miss how well Alex does some of the little things. He steals bases at an excellent rate and often when it matters. He gets on base to lead off innings as often as anyone on the team (a ‘clutch’ statistic that’s rarely examined), and he’s probably the best baserunner on the team.

    • Moshe Mandel says:

      Totally concur. Billyball, I think the thing that you are missing is that while it may be more fun to see a manufactured run (although unless there is a stolen base, I cant see how a bunch of groundouts and sacrifices are fun), A-Rod being in the lineup will lead to significantly more runs. Even if you suggest that smallball can help in the clutch, you end up in much fewer clutch situations with small ball because you are not as good as you would be with Alex mashing in the lineup.

      • MichiganYankee says:

        What is accurate however, is that the teams of 1996-2000 dynasty had a more balanced attack, i.e. many stars instead of one or two superstars. In those 5 years, Yankees had only five individual seasons in the AL Top 10 WARP:

        Pettitte, 1997 (#5 – MVP runner-up Tino was #17)
        O’Neill, 1997 (#8)
        Jeter, 1999 (#3 – behind Pedro and Manny – Pudge was #6)
        Bernie, 1999 (#8)
        Posada, 2000 (#8)

        Most notably, the 114-win 1998 team did not have a single top-10 player. What they did have was

        #11 Jeter (8.6)
        #12 O’Neill (8.5)
        #13 Bernie (8.4)
        #21 Brosius (7.7)
        #22 Knoblauch (7.7 – 18 FRAA – he could still throw back then)

        By comparison, the 2001-2008 teams have had 17 top-10 performers with nary a ring to show:

        Mussina, 2001 (#4)
        Rivera, 2001 (#9)
        Giambi, 2002 (#3 – behind Lowe and A-Rod – Ichiro was #16)
        Soriano, 2002 (#9)
        Posada, 2003 (#5)
        Mussina, 2003 (#6)
        Rivera, 2004 (#5)
        A-Rod, 2004 (#7)
        A-Rod, 2005 (#1)
        Rivera, 2005 (#5)
        Jeter, 2005 (#6)
        Jeter, 2006 (#2 – behind Santana – Morneau was #20)
        A-Rod, 2007 (#1)
        Cano, 2007 (#7)
        Rivera, 2008 (#2 – behind Cliff Lee – Pedroia was #3)
        A-Rod, 2008 (#6)
        Mussina, 2008 (#8)

        • Moshe Mandel says:

          While that is true, the difference is really very simple- the late 90′s teams pitched, the ones of this decade have not.

          • MichiganYankee says:

            Not quite. The Yanks had elite pitching staffs through 2003. It was the inability to score runs that did them in in the 2001 and 2003 World Series. Even in 2004, while the lack of pitching depth exposed them in Game 7, their failure to capitalize scoring opportunities (even when helped along by Varitek’s past balls on Wakefield’s knucklers) caused the losses in Games 4 and 5.

            • Moshe Mandel says:

              Yeah, I messed up the endpoints there. It really runs 1997-99, great pitching and great hitting, 00-03, strong pitching, middling hitting, 2004-2007 great hitting middling pitching.

  8. oldpep says:

    When you look at the regular season records of the Yankee pitchers from 96-2000, what stands out is just how awful the back half of some of those rotations really were. They had some surprisingly good outings (SP & RP) throughout those years.
    El Duque’s WS performances were completely unexpected.

    I agree about the 2001 & 2003 WS teams. They weren’t able to score enough runs. 2004 really comes down to Mo and Flash not being able to hold on to late leads for the fourth win vs Boston.

    • Steve S. says:

      The 03 team was the last one that finished with a top 3 ERA in the AL. That’s really been the cause of our recent problems.

      But that also argues that pitching is the name of the game, no one hitter is worth it if they are detrimental to the team. The difference between a great hitter and a good hitter at 3B is roughly 100 points of OPS(850/950). That’s one extra base every ten ABs, or one extra run every 8 games. That’s not worth pulling your hair out over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.