> >>Getting swept by KC to lose their division might have been the best thing

:-)
there's a certain logic in the premise that it's easier to beat a good
team three times than four. bats are more likely to slump for the
shorter period. but if the yankees' problem was lack of pitching depth,
that weakness should have been exposed more, not less, by a seven-game
series. right?

--
Ben

Ben B wrote:

I don't think I was making any assumptions about pitching depth per se.
My relief was because I thought NY was a better team going in, and it
seems easier to me for an underdog to pull off an upset in a 5 game
series than in a 7 game series.

Colin

Ben B wrote:

I'm a proponent of seven game divisinon series, but I don't think a
seven game series would have helped NYY much this year. They would
have ran Chien-Ming Wang out again in Game 5, probably against Nate
Robertson again. That's pretty much a push though Wang was more
successful in Game 1. But even if they pull to 2-3 the Yanks still
have to depend on Mike Mussina to beat Justin Verlander in Game 6 and
some combination of Randy Johnson, Jaret Wright and/or Shawn Chacon to
beat Rogers or Bonderman in a Game 7.

I don't see that happening. It would take a monumental comeback by
NYY, where their offense scored high enough to make up for their
mediocre-at-best pitching.

To put it another way, New York's starting pitching this October wasn't
notably better than what Atlanta would have run out if they had made
the cut.

s/

"Alice Faber" <aqfaber@gmail.com> wrote

Well, that's the risk a team takes in signing Cliff Floyd, I guess.

Colin