One constant theme that I have harped on for a while is Brian Cashman’s seeming unwillingness to address his bench in recent seasons. The dynasty teams always seemed like they could call a good hitter off the bench to get a huge hit when necessary. However, looking back at the numbers, it seems that this was not the case.
I looked at the 1999 Yankees and found that among bench players with more than 30 games, Chad Curtis was the only one with an decent OPS+, coming in at 100. Joe Girardi was at 60, Shane Spencer at 77, Luis Sojo was at 59, Jim Leyritz at 76, and Clay Bellinger at 34. This does not seem like a championship bench, nor does it seem much better than the groups that Brian Cashman has pieced together over the last few seasons. So what is the difference?
The answer, of course, is in the health of the starters. The Yankees had 6 of their 8 non-platoon players play in at least 146 games. Most bench players are on the bench because they are not good enough to be starting for anybody in the league, and you want to minimize their exposure by getting as many games as possible out of the starters. The Yankees of the last few years have had older lineups, and that is what has cost them dearly. Cash is no better or worse now than he was then at building a bench, nor is he worse than most GM’s at finding suitable subs. He just saw his core age and signed some older guys to long term deals, and it has exposed players who need to be used in limited circumstances.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
3 Responses to The Myth Of The Great Benches In The Late 90's
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I would say 96-98 was when the depth was at its peak. They could roll out more quality veteran guys to give the starters a breather. Platoons of charlie hayes and wade boggs at 3rd, raines, strawberry and whiten at lf, posada as a backup catcher (in 97 and 98), chili davis and big daddy at dh. Even guys like mike aldrete and mike stanley (on his second tour of duty when he was a backup only) provided great depth. Now a fair counter argument could be that say a Homer Bush in 98 put up numbers that he never was able to repeat again. But the majority of the great depth came from veterans.
96: Leyritz Raines Strawberry Fielder, Hayes
97: Boggs, Posada, Strawberry, Duncan, Stanley
98: Raines, Davis, Girardi, Spencer (I refuse to include the fluke season by Bush)
99: Spencer, Leyritz, Strawberry.
The bench starts to disappear over the next few years, and guys like Spencer are considered to be starter quality. Edmonds for Mendoza is turned down, and by 2001 the bench is an aging Velarde, Bellinger, LF is patrolled by Knoblauch, and the days of Todd Greene level BUCs is upon us.
I don’t think it’s a myth. I think the biggest myth from 2001 to 2005 is that whenever a signing or a trade doesn’t work it’s those guys in Tampa and when it does, it’s Cashman.
Good post, Pep and I agree with your sentiment.
One significant quibble, which actually bolsters our argument. Posada should be on your bench. He didn’t get the full time job until 2000. Girardi was the starting catcher from 1996-1999.
And the team with the great bench was the 1998 one. Cashman has said that he would LOVE to get veterans for his bench and would pay them good money, but the issue is usually playing time. He just hasn’t been able to attract any Tim Raines/Chili Davis types in recent years, though not for lack of trying on his part.