05/01: 2005 vs. 2007
Posted by: James
I've seen (and heard) a lot of fans mentioning how the Yankees have been in bigger holes than they are in this year. Most of those people are of course referring to 2005 when the Yankees started the season with a very illustrious 11-19 record.
At this point (after 23 games), the two seasons line up nicely. The Yanks currently stand at 9-14 and 6.5 games back of the division leading Red Sox (131 RS, 125 RA, 12-11 Expected Wins and Losses) . In 2005, the Yankees were 9-14 and 6.5 games behind the division leading Orioles (119 RS, 126 RA, 11-12 ExW&L).
Still, here's one big difference between 2005 and this season. As bad as the Yankees were that year, the starting pitchers were still giving the team innings. Courtesy of Baseball Musings, here's the 2005 line: 7-11, 140 IP, 175 Hits, 37 BBs and 106 Ks with 92 RA (78 Earned). Still, while the ERA is bloated, the peripherals weren't hideous: 5.01 ERA, .389 winning percentage, 6.6 Ks per 9, 2.4 BB per 9, 1.29 HR per 9 and a 2.76 K/BB. Comparatively, the 2006 line over the same number of starts is quite a bit worse: 4-8, 109 IP, 137 Hits, 42 BBs and 60 Ks with 80 RA (72 Earned). The peripherals are pretty scary too: 5.94 ERA, .333 winning percentage, 5.0 Ks per 9, 3.5 BB per 9, 1.57 HR per 9 (thanks Chase) and a 1.43 K/BB. Technically, since Karstens started the game where he broke his leg, Jeff's numbers are in these totals, not Kei's.
I guess with the amount of unproven pitching the Yankees have thrown on the mound this year, these results shouldn't be surprising and looking at them now, you see why the Yanks are where they are right now. I mean, it's remarkably basic to say but to start climbing their way back up, the team has to get better, longer starts on a consistent basis (and a little bit of luck). In 2005, the Yankees had guys named Wang, Chacon and Small (see what I mean about luck) come in and log quality innings and provide some big time wins. This year, if this season is to turn around in time, it'll have to be guys named Wang, Mussina and Pavano (heh) doing the same thing as they get healthy and Hughes, et. al. filling the gaps when needed. In 5 months, we'll know whether they were up to the task.
At this point (after 23 games), the two seasons line up nicely. The Yanks currently stand at 9-14 and 6.5 games back of the division leading Red Sox (131 RS, 125 RA, 12-11 Expected Wins and Losses) . In 2005, the Yankees were 9-14 and 6.5 games behind the division leading Orioles (119 RS, 126 RA, 11-12 ExW&L).
Still, here's one big difference between 2005 and this season. As bad as the Yankees were that year, the starting pitchers were still giving the team innings. Courtesy of Baseball Musings, here's the 2005 line: 7-11, 140 IP, 175 Hits, 37 BBs and 106 Ks with 92 RA (78 Earned). Still, while the ERA is bloated, the peripherals weren't hideous: 5.01 ERA, .389 winning percentage, 6.6 Ks per 9, 2.4 BB per 9, 1.29 HR per 9 and a 2.76 K/BB. Comparatively, the 2006 line over the same number of starts is quite a bit worse: 4-8, 109 IP, 137 Hits, 42 BBs and 60 Ks with 80 RA (72 Earned). The peripherals are pretty scary too: 5.94 ERA, .333 winning percentage, 5.0 Ks per 9, 3.5 BB per 9, 1.57 HR per 9 (thanks Chase) and a 1.43 K/BB. Technically, since Karstens started the game where he broke his leg, Jeff's numbers are in these totals, not Kei's.
I guess with the amount of unproven pitching the Yankees have thrown on the mound this year, these results shouldn't be surprising and looking at them now, you see why the Yanks are where they are right now. I mean, it's remarkably basic to say but to start climbing their way back up, the team has to get better, longer starts on a consistent basis (and a little bit of luck). In 2005, the Yankees had guys named Wang, Chacon and Small (see what I mean about luck) come in and log quality innings and provide some big time wins. This year, if this season is to turn around in time, it'll have to be guys named Wang, Mussina and Pavano (heh) doing the same thing as they get healthy and Hughes, et. al. filling the gaps when needed. In 5 months, we'll know whether they were up to the task.
