Today In Dumb Headlines

"CC Sabathia proves he's a winner by earning fifteenth victory against Boston"

I'm glad that we now have this "proof", because had he earned his 15th victory against the Angels, he still would have been a total loser. Or if it was his only his 14 victory, we would still have to suspend our judgement. We can't blame John Harper for the writing that, but we sure can for this:

On the matter of pitching, after all, regardless of the era there are the Javier Vasquez types, pitchers whose stuff always seems to be better than their records, and then there are the Jack Morris types, pitchers whose records are more impressive than their ERA because they know how to win.

Sabathia gave the Yankees something of a Jack Morris game Sunday night, at least by the pitch-count limits of today's game, going 6 2/3 innings, allowing four runs, three earned.

Harper then cites affirmative quotes from Joe Girardi, but oddly finishes by talking about Sabathia's shortcomings in the postseason, apparently implying that he forgets how to win once the playoffs roll around.

I get the feeling a lot of pitchers "know how to win" games when the guy who they are opposing gives up 8 runs. Craig from Shysterball points us to a Baseball Prospectus article which shows that Jack Morris was not uniquely adept at "pitching to the scoreboard" and shuns the notion in general. Pitchers shouldn't ever want to give up runs, and just like hitters trying to score them, can't really control when it happens, just how often it does in the long run.

Earlier this year, we noted that the Yankees were 11-11 in Sabathia's starts primarily because he was receiving the least run support out of any of their 4 regular starters. Since then, he's ripped off 5 straight victories while the team has averaged just under 8 runs per game in support of him. It's not rocket science or psychology here, folks. The guy is a good pitcher and when he's backed by a strong offensive performance, he's likely to walk away with the win.

Winning Against Winners

Perhaps you've noticed that the Yanks have struggled against the better teams they've faced this year. You'd be on to something, because they are only 24-29 against teams with winning records. Maybe you think that is a bad thing since those are the teams they are likely to face in the playoffs. Would you be wrong? (h/t Shyster @ CTB)

This actually isn't a bad sign at all, though. In fact, it's the mark of a champion. In recent years, winning the World Series has had nothing to do with being good against good competition. Five of the nine champions this decade posted losing regular-season records against opponents that were .500 or better, including the 2008 Phillies (43-46).

Conversely, teams that excel against tough opponents tend to flop in the postseason. Not since the 1995 Braves has the team with the best record against .500-or-better competition won the World Series that same season. The Los Angeles Angels keep demonstrating this: They dominated such opponents in 2007 (.594) and 2008 (.605), yet lost in the first round both years.

Our pal Craig goes along with this theory and throws out an admittedly "untestable yet moderately-satisfying hypothesis" comparing baseball teams to marathon runners. He proposes some interesting ideas, but I'm not buying the original premise of the article.

First, let's point out the sketchy logic from the quote above.

1. I wouldn't say winning a World Series has "nothing to do" with how teams play against good competition. Five of the past nine champions is A) a limited sample size and B) only one Game 7 (in 2002) away from saying 5/9 had winning records against opponents that were .500+.
   
   
2. Why would the author, Darren Everson, break it at 2000? What happens when you go back from 1995-1999? Every single World Series Champion had a winning record against winning teams during the regular season. So from 1995-2008, nine out of 14 have fit that mold. Kind of undermines the point of the article, huh? Don't let the facts...
   
   
3. "Not since the 1995 Braves has the team with the best record against .500-or-better competition" - Eight teams make the playoffs and one can have the best record against +.500 competition. Do you know how many times the team with the best record overall has won over that span? One (and a half). The 1998 Yankees (114 wins) and the 2007 Red Sox who, along with the Indians, won 96 games that year.
   
   
4. "The Los Angeles Angels keep demonstrating this..." - By doing it twice in a row? Not much of a trend when looking at 14 years of data, is it?

One further point that I would like to add is that by definition, the entire league plays under .500 ball against teams with winning records.

Starting with 1996 (so as to include only 162 game seasons) 191 out of a possible 386 team seasons have ended with winning records. In total, those teams are 17,321 - 13,611, which equates to a .570 winning percentage. So on average, teams can expect to go 35-46 if they play 81 games against teams with winning records. That makes .500 against those teams look pretty good, right?

Is it imperative that a team plays well against winning teams during the regular season? No, but if you take an objective look at the data and go a little further back, it certainly appears to be a good sign.

Better Off Without Him?

Since A-Rod has returned, the Yankees are 8-2 in the 10 games in which he has played. Prior to his return, the team was 13-15.

Mark Teixeira is 13-of-36 with five home runs, 13 RBI since his return. Prior to his return, he hit .198, with 5 homers and 15 RBI.

It is clear that the Yankees now have the best 3-4 combo in the Bigs.

So do you still think that we are better off without him?