It's gonna be hilarious to see the backpedaling in here when this team wins its 95th game.
All I heard back in 2007 was that A-Rod CARRIED the team to the postseason; some people went so far as to say he was the only reason they made the playoffs. Now, he's coming back...and suddenly it means nothing.
Teixeira is going to finish up right around .290, but is barely treading above .200 right now.
CC is going to win 18-20 games, and you can count on one finger how many he's got so far.
And if you think this pen is going to carry a 6+ ERA for the season, I respectfully disagree.
It's an awful stretch, no doubt. But some of you guys act like there won't be good stretches to balance it out. It's not like anybody is running away with the division (sorry Toronto fans, I just feel this is Orioles 2005 redux).
Remember -- marathon, not a sprint.
The only thing that would cause me to change my mind on this is if Mo has a significant injury. On a side note, it's odd that this comes out after last night considering his 17/0 K-BB ratio AND the fact that two nights ago he looked about as "on" as he can be.
Last thing is this...
I don't know how you can say a team is good enough for 95-100 wins and a division title but not good enough to win the ALCS. How can you justify that statement? ANY team that wins 95-100 games is obviously good enough to win the World Series. If they don't win it, it's not that they weren't good enough beforehand. It just means they didn't play well enough that week! But if you go into a postseason with two 20-game winners, three 30-HR guys, a boatload of .300 hitters and 100 RBI men, a dominant bullpen and closer, and lose...it doesn't mean you weren't good enough as constructed. It just means the other team played better than you over a 5 or 7 game stretch. It happens.
If you want to say a team that slugs its way to 100 wins isn't as equipped as one that has four dominant starters, fine. But this Yankee team isn't just built on offense like in the past. They've got good starters AND the bats to go with them. It hasn't come together yet. Doesn't mean it won't. And as we've all seen (even in the years the Yanks were winning), it only takes a handful of plays that turn an entire series the other way. Are you going to tell me the 2004 Yankees weren't good enough to beat Boston? They were one inning away from those flaws never being exposed! Are you going to tell me the 2008 Rays weren't good enough to beat Philly? The 1996 Braves weren't every bit as talented as the Yankees that year? Come on.
We've seen it a million times, the best team doesn't always win a series -- and it's more often who gets good pitching rather than who is a good pitcher. The 2006 Yankees were a better team than the 2006 Tigers. But the 2006 Tigers got great pitching from an extremely unlikely source in Kenny Rogers at a pivotal moment. Does that mean we should go into the offseason looking to sign every soft-tossing aging lefty we can find? Come on people, it's baseball -- things happen, especially in a short series, and that's what makes it so great and unpredictable. Best teams lose (see Cubs, Chicago circa 2008) and worst teams win. It makes for great theater come postseason. ANYBODY CAN BEAT ANYBODY. If your expectation of a team is for a division title and approaching 100 wins, you're letting your "Yankees always choke in the playoffs" bias show through if you think you can predict what round they're good enough to reach.