Amazing Yankee Stat This season in regards to lack of 9th inning or later comebacks

[madjack]

First round loss, if they even make the playoffs.

[BroadwayBomber55]

You probably heard Michael Kay say last night that the Yankees are 0-34 (0-35 after last night's debacle) when trailing after 8 innings. Well I did some digging and it's amazing that they are where they are with these numbers and that they aren't about 12 or 13 games up in the east:

Of those 35 losses, the Yankees had the tying or winning run at the plate in 16 of them in the 9th inning.

In 20 of their 42 losses they have either had the game tying or winning run at the plate in the 9th inning or later.

In addition to those 20 losses, they also have another 3 losses where they were either tied or had the lead going into the 9th and blew it. That's another 3 games they easily could have won.

They have gotten to one closer the entire season in the 9th inning or later for a blown save. That was against Jose Valverde and the Tigers ended up winning in the bottom of the 9th.

They have had the game winning run at the plate in 4 of their home losses, twice with the winning run at 2nd. Of course we know how that turned out.

In games where the games have either gone to extra innings or were tied at some point in the 9th the Yankees are 5-7.

In 5 of their 42 losses they've had the tying, go ahead or winning run at 2nd or 3rd with 0 or 1 out in the 9th inning or later.

Despite having the best record in the American League, the Yankees are just 22-21 in games decided by 2 runs or less.

What does that all say? That the Yankees record should be a lot better than it is and that there's a serious issue with late-game hitting.

Um, the 1997 Cleveland Indians were 1-64 in games when trailing after 8 and still went on to win the AL Pennant and were one win away from beating the Florida Marlins in the 1997 World Series.

[effdamets]

Um, the 1997 Cleveland Indians were 1-64 in games when trailing after 8 and still went on to win the AL Pennant and were one win away from beating the Florida Marlins in the 1997 World Series.

Meh.... at least they had a winning percentage in those situations....

[BroadwayBomber55]

Meh.... at least they had a winning percentage in those situations....

In my pissed off Yankee fan ego: Meh my you know what. Anything can happen.

[effdamets]

In my pissed off Yankee fan ego: Meh my you know what. Anything can happen.

I was being sarcastic.... Just trying to make people realize that no matter what happened in 1997 or anytime before NOW, it doesn't matter.
Just imagine this: (not u, BB55)
Imagine if the Yankees were in 2nd place and went through a stretch like this, 6-12, and widened the deficit.

My point is, they built up a big lead so that a 6-12 stratch would be sustainable.
People need to wuit freaking out because they've hit a rough patch.

[madjack]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. People have complained about the Yankee offense being too home run dependent all year, and now this rough stretch is just emphasizing the problem even more.

[sweet_lou_14]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. People have complained about the Yankee offense being too home run dependent all year, and now this rough stretch is just emphasizing the problem even more.

I don't see how you can prove that the team's recent losses have anything specifically to do with being "too home run dependent." The assertion is borderline nonsensical.

What does it even mean to be "too home run dependent"? If they were winning games earlier in the season with fewer home runs, and they suddenly lost a bunch of games (as all teams do), what would you be saying then? That the rough stretch just emphasizes how they're too dependent on situational hitting?

[JL25and3]

I don't see how you can prove that the team's recent losses have anything specifically to do with being "too home run dependent." The assertion is borderline nonsensical.

What does it even mean to be "too home run dependent"? If they were winning games earlier in the season with fewer home runs, and they suddenly lost a bunch of games (as all teams do), what would you be saying then? That the rough stretch just emphasizes how they're too dependent on situational hitting?

The implication of the stat seems clear enough to me: when they hit more home runs, they win more. I suspect that's true of a whole lot of teams. The solution to their current doldrums is to hit more home runs.

[scine20]

I think it's more bad luck than anything else.

How many times in these games have the Yankees hit a ball hard only to either go just foul or be caught?

Even the other night in the Granderson at bat he hit a ball that just missed being a 2-run double or triple by going foul.

These guys didn't forget how to hit. Derek Jeter's had many outs in clutch situations this year. He's still a .300+ hitter who has gotten it done in the clutch many times before and does know how to swing a bat in that situation. Same with Robinson Cano. ARod pretty much squashed the notion that there's really such a thing as "good clutch hitters" versus "bad clutch hitters" in the 2009 playoffs.

I posted this thread more to show how amazing the stat is than to say it means anything.

If the Yankees are down 5-4 in the 9th inning in the playoffs against Joe Nathan the fact that they failed to have any 9th inning comeback wins will mean as much as it would mean if they'd had 10 9th inning comeback wins.

[effdamets]

I think it's more bad luck than anything else.

How many times in these games have the Yankees hit a ball hard only to either go just foul or be caught?

Even the other night in the Granderson at bat he hit a ball that just missed being a 2-run double or triple by going foul.

These guys didn't forget how to hit. Derek Jeter's had many outs in clutch situations this year. He's still a .300+ hitter who has gotten it done in the clutch many times before and does know how to swing a bat in that situation. Same with Robinson Cano. ARod pretty much squashed the notion that there's really such a thing as "good clutch hitters" versus "bad clutch hitters" in the 2009 playoffs.

I posted this thread more to show how amazing the stat is than to say it means anything.

If the Yankees are down 5-4 in the 9th inning in the playoffs against Joe Nathan the fact that they failed to have any 9th inning comeback wins will mean as much as it would mean if they'd had 10 9th inning comeback wins.

I'm not defending either side here because I don't care enough either way, but from a psychological standpoint, if the Yankees succeed more in the walkoff situations during the regular season, they'll have a bit more confidence in those situations during the post season.
That doesn't mean they'll have more or as much success (or failure in this instance).

[madjack]

I don't see how you can prove that the team's recent losses have anything specifically to do with being "too home run dependent." The assertion is borderline nonsensical.

What does it even mean to be "too home run dependent"? If they were winning games earlier in the season with fewer home runs, and they suddenly lost a bunch of games (as all teams do), what would you be saying then? That the rough stretch just emphasizes how they're too dependent on situational hitting?

They were the last team to win a game this year without hitting a home run. That means that they were dependent on hitting a home run to win the game.

[scine20]

They were the last team to win a game this year without hitting a home run. That means that they were dependent on hitting a home run to win the game.

I disagree with that too.

They won games this year where they happened to hit HR's but didn't necessarily need them.

I remember one game specifically in Washington that Granderson homered with 2 out in the top of the 9th to continue the streak before they won the next day and didn't homer.

[Yankee Tripper]

They were the last team to win a game this year without hitting a home run. That means that they were dependent on hitting a home run to win the game.

Or it means they hit a lot of freaking home runs.

[JL25and3]

Or it means they hit a lot of freaking home runs.

It's true, the Yankees have won fewer games w/o home runs than any of their competitors. I've only checked a few teams, but I'll but something else is true: the Yankees have lost fewer game without home runs than any of those competitors (Yankees 17 L; Rangers 20, Orioles, 23, Rays 29, Blue Jays 19)

In other words, they hit a lot of freaking home runs.

[madjack]

Show me where I said they didn't hit a lot of freaking home runs.

[JL25and3]

Show me where I said they didn't hit a lot of freaking home runs.

The next step is to see that that's a good thing. They don't win many games without hitting HR because they don't play many games without hitting HR.

[False1]

I posted this thread more to show how amazing the stat is than to say it means anything.

From your very first post that started this thread...

What does that all say? That the Yankees record should be a lot better than it is and that there's a serious issue with late-game hitting.

You make a statement about what you think it means in your opening post.

[False1]

They were the last team to win a game this year without hitting a home run. That means that they were dependent on hitting a home run to win the game.

if they weren't hitting sh*tloads of home runs home runs, that might be a meaningful bit of data you've got there.

Am I just noticing these Yankee memes more this year than before?

The stat du juor Right now is this "record in 1 run games" nonsense. The Yankees record in that cherry picked sample is terrible, and the Orioles is ridiculously good. Yet the Orioles are still trailing the Yankees. What does that tell those of you regurgitating that over and over?

[madjack]

Well let's just see if we can hold onto this win today, in which we've hit a home run AND is a 1 run game.

[just-blaze]

We have probably played over our heads this season. Be happy we are where we are.

/rant

Seriously. The bench and other pieces have really stepped it up to have us where we are at.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Very disappointing to see the yanks' continued inability to snap this streak.

[False1]

Very disappointing to see the yanks' continued inability to snap this streak.

But they DID win a 1 run game, which when processed through the onerunometer actually equates to 1.6 wins. Yay - they are a better team now!

[Yankee Tripper]

The next step is to see that that's a good thing. They don't win many games without hitting HR because they don't play many games without hitting HR.

Yeah that was kind of my point. Thanks for making it crystal clear.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

But they DID win a 1 run game, which when processed through the onerunometer actually equates to 1.6 wins. Yay - they are a better team now!

What about the downward adjustment for needing home runs?

[JL25and3]

But they DID win a 1 run game, which when processed through the onerunometer actually equates to 1.6 wins. Yay - they are a better team now!

What about the downward adjustment for needing home runs?

Yeh, I'm confused by this one. They "found a way" to win a come-from-behind, one-run game, but they had to resort to the morally inferior home-run dependence. I don't know if this makes them better or worse.