NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Wwwmaaw » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00


In the Saturday, July 18 issue of the NY Times, they ask a number of persons
the question:  "How Good Are These Yankees?"  Interesting mix of interviewees
-- Marvin Miller, Terry Cashman, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Frank Robinson, among
others.  I'd be interested in the newsgroup's opinion on Robinson's comments,
which I will excerpt below.

"... They are an outstanding ball club, but they are playing at a time when the
competition is weak.  Expansion is one reason.  Economics is another.

Nowadays everybody has to watch the budget; most clubs, anyway.  This has
stretched the talent really thin and weakened rosters on many teams."

(And this has never happened before in baseball history?)  

"The Yankees have holes.  They have a hole at catcher, and another in
leftfield."

(Anyone check out where Posada ranks in RC/25?)

"They lack power at third base -- throughout their lineup, in fact. [Then he
refers to the '27 Yankees, the '70's Reds and A's, and Robinson's Oriole
teams.]  Those teams all had an abundance of power, and that is the most
important ingredient the Yankees are missing."

(Last I saw, the Yankees are scoring as many runs per game as anyone, even
after missing Bernie Williams for a month.  True, they aren't among the home
run leaders, but they easily lead in on-base percentage.  Anyone know where
they stand in slugging average?)

And didn't Frank's Reds ever play the Mets or the Astros?  Didn't his Orioles
ever play the Pilots/Mariners or the Royals?  On the other hand, three of the
four best 162-game records have been posted in expansion years or shortly
thereafter -- 1961 Yankees, 1969-70 Orioles.  Is it possible the great teams
really beat up on the weak ones?)

Robinson makes some interesting points, and he seems like an intelligent guy,
but is this another case of an old-time ballplayer bashing the current crop,
despite evidence that players get better all the time?

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Bob Timmerman » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> In the Saturday, July 18 issue of the NY Times, they ask a number of persons
> the question:  "How Good Are These Yankees?"  Interesting mix of interviewees
> -- Marvin Miller, Terry Cashman, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Frank Robinson, among
> others.  I'd be interested in the newsgroup's opinion on Robinson's comments,
> which I will excerpt below.

> "... They are an outstanding ball club, but they are playing at a time when the
> competition is weak.  Expansion is one reason.  Economics is another.

> Nowadays everybody has to watch the budget; most clubs, anyway.  This has
> stretched the talent really thin and weakened rosters on many teams."

> (And this has never happened before in baseball history?)

The 1902 Pittsburgh Pirates, to whom the Yankees are being compared to,
have a somewhat similar background. The AL was in its second season and
had heavily raided NL rosters, except for the Pirates. The 1901 Pirates
won the NL by 7.5 and in 1902 they won by 27.5 and raised their
percentage from .647 to .741.

The second place team of 1901 was Philadelphia featured players like Ed
Delahanty and Elmer Flick (both in the HOF). The next year they were
both in the AL and they dropped from .593 to .409. Meanwhile the Pirates
won in 1901 with a nucleus of Wagner, Clarke, Chesbro, and Phillippe. In
1902, the same nucleus was there.

The Yankees of today differ in that they were able to add better players
instead of avoiding losing ones, but the results will still be the same
as in 1902.
--
Bob Timmermann
South Pasadena CA

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by David Marc Niepore » Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
>In the Saturday, July 18 issue of the NY Times, they ask a number of
>persons the question:  "How Good Are These Yankees?"  Interesting mix of
>interviewees -- Marvin Miller, Terry Cashman, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Frank
>Robinson, among others.  I'd be interested in the newsgroup's opinion on
>Robinson's comments, which I will excerpt below.

Most of the people didn't even bother to answer the question, instead
using it as an excuse to reminisce.  I personally liked Marvin Miller
attributing the Yankees' success this year to the players' union.  Joe
Torre is a good manager thanks to the player's union was his argument.
Torre learned how to be a leader thanks to the MLBPA, which is why the
Yankees are playing so well.  (What that says about the MLBPA, given
Torre's pre-Yankee track record, is anybody's guess.)

But Robinson's piece seemed particularly inane, as I commented on the Os
list at the time.

Quote:
>"... They are an outstanding ball club, but they are playing at a time
>when the competition is weak.  Expansion is one reason.  Economics is
>another.
>Nowadays everybody has to watch the budget; most clubs, anyway.  This has
>stretched the talent really thin and weakened rosters on many teams."
>(And this has never happened before in baseball history?)  

That was, of course, my first reaction.  My second reaction was "What the
hell does that have to do with the question?"

Quote:
>"The Yankees have holes.  They have a hole at catcher, and another in
>leftfield."
>(Anyone check out where Posada ranks in RC/25?)

Yeah, but he could be referring to Girardi, so that's not the really inane
part.  The inane part is the claim about LF, where they have Strawberry,
Curtis, Raines, and Ledee.  That's a hole?

Quote:
>"They lack power at third base -- throughout their lineup, in fact. [Then he
>refers to the '27 Yankees, the '70's Reds and A's, and Robinson's Oriole
>teams.]  Those teams all had an abundance of power, and that is the most
>important ingredient the Yankees are missing."
>(Last I saw, the Yankees are scoring as many runs per game as anyone, even
>after missing Bernie Williams for a month.  True, they aren't among the home
>run leaders, but they easily lead in on-base percentage.  Anyone know where
>they stand in slugging average?)

Middle of the pack.  5th, something like that.  And, yes, that was a dumb
comment on his part.  First, Strawberry, Williams, and O'Neill are hardly
banjo hitters.  Second, who cares?  If they're playing .750 ball without
power, then that's evidence that power isn't necessary to be a great team,
not that they're not a great team.

Quote:
>And didn't Frank's Reds ever play the Mets or the Astros?  Didn't his Orioles
>ever play the Pilots/Mariners or the Royals?  On the other hand, three of the
>four best 162-game records have been posted in expansion years or shortly
>thereafter -- 1961 Yankees, 1969-70 Orioles.  Is it possible the great teams
>really beat up on the weak ones?)

Of course.  For some reason, all these old farts today seem to forget that
there were *more* bad teams in their day, not fewer, that talent was
distributed *less* evenly.

Quote:
>Robinson makes some interesting points, and he seems like an intelligent
>guy, but is this another case of an old-time ballplayer bashing the
>current crop, despite evidence that players get better all the time?

Since when did Frank Robinson seem like an intelligent guy?

I particularly liked his commentary while broadcasting a Fox game a month
or so ago.

Robinson: "Why do they call him Moose?"
Lewin(?): "Well, his last name is Mussina"
Robinson: "Yeah, so?"

--
David M. Nieporent                    "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry.  I

2L - St. John's School of Law          The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society  got the gist of it."  -- L. Hutz

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Jonathan Bernste » Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:00:00




: Most of the people didn't even bother to answer the question, instead
: using it as an excuse to reminisce.  I personally liked Marvin Miller
: attributing the Yankees' success this year to the players' union.  Joe
: Torre is a good manager thanks to the player's union was his argument.
: Torre learned how to be a leader thanks to the MLBPA, which is why the
: Yankees are playing so well.  (What that says about the MLBPA, given
: Torre's pre-Yankee track record, is anybody's guess.)

Anyone else starting to wonder about Torre as a modern-day Casey?  The
relative success at St. Louis works against it, of course, but you do have
two massive failures followed by what's been so far amazing success.

I could see Torre managing a team in the 2012 expansion.

: >Robinson makes some interesting points, and he seems like an intelligent
: >guy, but is this another case of an old-time ballplayer bashing the
: >current crop, despite evidence that players get better all the time?

: Since when did Frank Robinson seem like an intelligent guy?

As a player, but especially as a terrific manager.  Now, I'm avoiding him
on Fox, because I don't want to lose my image of him.

I still think he would've been a first rate GM.

JHB

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by jmac » Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Since when did Frank Robinson seem like an intelligent guy?

> I particularly liked his commentary while broadcasting a Fox game a month
> or so ago.

> Robinson: "Why do they call him Moose?"
> Lewin(?): "Well, his last name is Mussina"
> Robinson: "Yeah, so?"

"They're not booing--they're saying "M-I-I-K-E"
 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Alan Sepinwa » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>Anyone else starting to wonder about Torre as a modern-day Casey?  The
>relative success at St. Louis works against it, of course, but you do have
>two massive failures followed by what's been so far amazing success.

Torre has neither Stengel's ego nor his need for media acclaim, and also
seems to have a life outside of baseball (his family). If the Yanks win
the Series again this year, something tells me he'll hang it up and
relax, maybe returning in a few years to the broadcast booth.

Out of curiosity, how was the relative talent level of those Mets and
Braves clubs Torre managed. Because in his tenure as Yankee skipper, he's
struck me as a guy who's great with massaging egos and getting
personalities to mesh (hell, he's somehow kept Strawberry, Raines and
Curtis happy, and I bet he keeps them that way if Chili Davis ever gets
off the DL), but can't dramatically elevate a team's level of play. He's
no Cito, but he's also no Davey Johnson.


NYPD Blue page: http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~sepinwal/nypd.html

RANDOM QUOTE:

"The sea was angry that day, my friends - like an old man trying to
 send back soup in a deli!"
        -Jason Alexander, "Seinfeld"

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Nawrock » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00



: >
: >Anyone else starting to wonder about Torre as a modern-day Casey?  The
: >relative success at St. Louis works against it, of course, but you do have
: >two massive failures followed by what's been so far amazing success.

I'm not sure how you qualify Torre's disasters. His Mets were certainly
disastrous, and I have no idea how he hung on there as long as he did.

But the Braves won the division his first year there, and came close his second
year. They did a complete collapse the year after Torre left.

The Cardinals, I'd say, were more of a disaster than the Braves.

Then we have the Yankees. The 1996 World Champs, you may be interested to know,
had a lower winning percentage than the 1994 and '95 teams combined, in what
were Buck Showalter's last two years. Buck put this team together; Torre's just
taken the payoff.

: Torre has neither Stengel's ego nor his need for media acclaim, and also
: seems to have a life outside of baseball (his family). If the Yanks win
: the Series again this year, something tells me he'll hang it up and
: relax, maybe returning in a few years to the broadcast booth.

: Out of curiosity, how was the relative talent level of those Mets and
: Braves clubs Torre managed. Because in his tenure as Yankee skipper, he's
: struck me as a guy who's great with massaging egos and getting
: personalities to mesh (hell, he's somehow kept Strawberry, Raines and
: Curtis happy, and I bet he keeps them that way if Chili Davis ever gets
: off the DL), but can't dramatically elevate a team's level of play. He's
: no Cito, but he's also no Davey Johnson.

How hard could it be to keep Strawberry and Curtis happy? These guys don't
exactly have a lot to complain about.

Tom Nawrocki

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Sean Lahma » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Then we have the Yankees. The 1996 World Champs, you may be interested
> to know, had a lower winning percentage than the 1994 and '95 teams
> combined, in what were Buck Showalter's last two years. Buck put this
> team together; Torre's just taken the payoff.

That's not true at all.  Look at the key players:

      1994         1995         1996
 C   Stanley      Stanley      Girardi
1B   Mattingly    Mattingly    Martinez
2B   Kelly        Velarde      Duncan
3B   Boggs        Boggs        Boggs
SS   Gallego      Fernandez    Jeter
LF   Polonia      G Williams   Strawberry
CF   B Williams   B Williams   B Williams
RF   O'Neill      O'Neill      O'Neill
DH   Tartabull    Tart./Sierra Sierra
SP1  Key          McDowell     Pettitte
SP2  Abbott       Hitchcock    Rogers
SP3  Mullholland  Pettitte     Gooden
SP4  Perez        Kamienecki   Key
Cl   Howe         Wetteland    Wetteland
R2   Wickman      Wickman      Wickman
R3   Hernandez    Howe         Rivera

Torre changed five of the nine names in the lineup, and changed half of
the rotation (plus Key was returning from injury).  Girardi, Martinez,
Duncan, Rogers and Gooden didn't arrive in New York until after
Showalter was gone, and Jeter had barely had a cup of coffee.  It
doesn't seem quite fair to say that Torre just took the payoff.  Take a
look at the 1990 Reds, when Piniella won a Series with a roster almost
completely the same as the year before:

      Rose-1989   Piniella-1990
 C   Reed           Oliver
1B   Benzinger      Benzinger
2B   Oester         Duncan
3B   Sabo           Sabo
SS   Larkin         Larkin
LF   Winningham     Hatcher
CF   Davis          Davis
RF   O'Neill        O'Neill
SP1  Rijo           Rijo
SP2  Jackson        Jackson
SP3  Browning       Browning
SP4  Mahler         Armstrong
Cl   Franco         Myers
R2   Dibble         Dibble
R3   Charlton       Charlton

Oliver was returning from injury, and Duncan had been acquired the
previous summer.  The only change Piniella made was to acquire Billy
Hatcher and swap closers with the Mets.

--

           The Baseball Archive - http://www.baseball1.com

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Paul Bot » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>In the Saturday, July 18 issue of the NY Times, they ask a number of persons
>the question:  "How Good Are These Yankees?"  Interesting mix of interviewees
>-- Marvin Miller, Terry Cashman, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Frank Robinson, among
>others.  I'd be interested in the newsgroup's opinion on Robinson's comments,
>which I will excerpt below.

>"... They are an outstanding ball club, but they are playing at a time when the
>competition is weak.  Expansion is one reason.  Economics is another.

>Nowadays everybody has to watch the budget; most clubs, anyway.  This has
>stretched the talent really thin and weakened rosters on many teams."

>(And this has never happened before in baseball history?)  

He's just repeating one of the most common and widely-held fallacies in
sports today. Nothing new there.

Quote:

>"The Yankees have holes.  They have a hole at catcher, and another in
>leftfield."

>(Anyone check out where Posada ranks in RC/25?)

>"They lack power at third base -- throughout their lineup, in fact. [Then he
>refers to the '27 Yankees, the '70's Reds and A's, and Robinson's Oriole
>teams.]  Those teams all had an abundance of power, and that is the most
>important ingredient the Yankees are missing."

Heh. Of course the 1927 Yankess actually had zero power at 3B, also at
C, CF.

The relevant comparison would be where all these teams rank in their
leagues in HR total, not in how many positions "have power."

Quote:

>(Last I saw, the Yankees are scoring as many runs per game as anyone, even
>after missing Bernie Williams for a month.  True, they aren't among the home
>run leaders, but they easily lead in on-base percentage.  Anyone know where
>they stand in slugging average?)

>And didn't Frank's Reds ever play the Mets or the Astros?  Didn't his Orioles
>ever play the Pilots/Mariners or the Royals?  On the other hand, three of the
>four best 162-game records have been posted in expansion years or shortly
>thereafter -- 1961 Yankees, 1969-70 Orioles.  Is it possible the great teams
>really beat up on the weak ones?)

>Robinson makes some interesting points, and he seems like an intelligent guy,
>but is this another case of an old-time ballplayer bashing the current crop,
>despite evidence that players get better all the time?

Pretty much, yes.
And Robinson has actually always been the classic example of the great
athlete who can't deal with the natural fact that most players aren't as
good as he was. That was a major problem with his attitude as a manager.
Of course he's right, he _was_ greater than 95% of the players in the
majors - today, in his own time, in Ruth's time, take your pick. He's
never been to get past the idea that every player should be like he was
and could be if he really focused, etc.

--
"The United States would be just about perfect if it were not for three
flaws: it is obsessed with race, it is full of lawyers, and it is
overrun by religious nuts." Gwynne Dyer, Chicago Tribune, 4/22/98

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Nawrock » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00

: >
: > Then we have the Yankees. The 1996 World Champs, you may be interested
: > to know, had a lower winning percentage than the 1994 and '95 teams
: > combined, in what were Buck Showalter's last two years. Buck put this
: > team together; Torre's just taken the payoff.

: That's not true at all.  Look at the key players:

Thanks, I hadn't realized how much turnover there was. Some of these changes
aren't as striking as you make them out to be, though:

:      1994         1995         1996
:  C   Stanley      Stanley      Girardi
: 1B   Mattingly    Mattingly    Martinez
: 2B   Kelly        Velarde      Duncan
: 3B   Boggs        Boggs        Boggs
: SS   Gallego      Fernandez    Jeter

Fernandez got hurt in spring training in 1996, forcing Torre to go with Jeter.
He did this very reluctantly, as I recall.

: LF   Polonia      G Williams   Strawberry

Strawberry played 32 games for the Yanks in '95, 63 games in '96. Gerald
Williams played in 100 games for the Yanks in '95, 99 in '96. Doesn't look like
too much turnover to me.

: CF   B Williams   B Williams   B Williams
: RF   O'Neill      O'Neill      O'Neill
: DH   Tartabull    Tart./Sierra Sierra
: SP1  Key          McDowell     Pettitte
: SP2  Abbott       Hitchcock    Rogers
: SP3  Mullholland  Pettitte     Gooden
: SP4  Perez        Kamienecki   Key

Plus Cone made about the same number of starts for both teams.

: Cl   Howe         Wetteland    Wetteland
: R2   Wickman      Wickman      Wickman
: R3   Hernandez    Howe         Rivera

: Torre changed five of the nine names in the lineup, and changed half of
: the rotation (plus Key was returning from injury).  Girardi, Martinez,
: Duncan, Rogers and Gooden didn't arrive in New York until after
: Showalter was gone, and Jeter had barely had a cup of coffee.

This is all true, and almost none of it was Torre's decision. If Fernandez
hadn't gotten hurt, the Yanks would have opened '96 with changes only at
catcher, first base and second base.

And my point remains: This is definitely not a better team than the 94-95
Yanks. They just got luckier in the postseason.

Tom Nawrocki

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Wwwmaaw » Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
>(David Marc Nieporent)
>  I personally liked Marvin Miller
>attributing the Yankees' success this year to the players' union.  Joe
>Torre is a good manager thanks to the player's union was his argument.

Yeah, I got a big kick out of this, too, but my post was already too long to
mention it.

Quote:
>>(Anyone check out where Posada ranks in RC/25?)

>Yeah, but he could be referring to Girardi, so that's not the really inane
>part.  The inane part is the claim about LF, where they have Strawberry,
>Curtis, Raines, and Ledee.  That's a hole?

Posada plays about 2/3 of the time, and Girardi is a pretty capable backup,
although a weak hitter.  (An aside about Girardi -- I really don't believe in
clutch hitting, but this guy has always seemed to get a disproportionate amount
of big hits.)

I didn't mention leftfield, because I wasn't under the impression that any of
these guys was an above average hitter for the position.  I'm very happy with
the production from the combination.  Curtis walks a lot, and Strawberry hit
for power.  All three have done pretty well at stolen bases, too, not that the
Yanks need it.  (I've gotta believe the Yankees are among the leaders in SB% --
anyone got the numbers on that?)

Anyway, David, I was glad to see that one of the most consistently on-the-ball
posters agreed with me!

Mike A.

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by samson9 » Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:



> : >
> : > Then we have the Yankees. The 1996 World Champs, you may be interested
> : > to know, had a lower winning percentage than the 1994 and '95 teams
> : > combined, in what were Buck Showalter's last two years. Buck put this
> : > team together; Torre's just taken the payoff.

> : That's not true at all.  Look at the key players:

> Thanks, I hadn't realized how much turnover there was. Some of these changes
> aren't as striking as you make them out to be, though:

> :      1994         1995         1996
> :  C   Stanley      Stanley      Girardi
> : 1B   Mattingly    Mattingly    Martinez
> : 2B   Kelly        Velarde      Duncan
> : 3B   Boggs        Boggs        Boggs
> : SS   Gallego      Fernandez    Jeter
> : LF   Polonia      G Williams   Strawberry

> Strawberry played 32 games for the Yanks in '95, 63 games in '96. Gerald
> Williams played in 100 games for the Yanks in '95, 99 in '96. Doesn't look like
> too much turnover to me.

> : CF   B Williams   B Williams   B Williams
> : RF   O'Neill      O'Neill      O'Neill
> : DH   Tartabull    Tart./Sierra Sierra
> : SP1  Key          McDowell     Pettitte
> : SP2  Abbott       Hitchcock    Rogers
> : SP3  Mullholland  Pettitte     Gooden
> : SP4  Perez        Kamienecki   Key

> Plus Cone...

> : Cl   Howe         Wetteland    Wetteland
> : R2   Wickman      Wickman      Wickman
> : R3   Hernandez    Howe         Rivera

> : Torre changed five of the nine names in the lineup, and changed half of
> : the rotation (plus Key was returning from injury).  Girardi, Martinez,
> : Duncan, Rogers and Gooden didn't arrive in New York until after
> : Showalter was gone, and Jeter had barely had a cup of coffee.

> This is all true, and almost none of it was Torre's decision. If Fernandez
> hadn't gotten hurt, the Yanks would have opened '96 with changes only at
> catcher, first base and second base.

> And my point remains: This is definitely not a better team than the 94-95
> Yanks. They just got luckier in the postseason.

You may have a point for Torre being no better than Schowalter,
but with Jeter over Fernandez/Gallego, Rivera over Howe, plus
a DH-brigade down the stretch of Fielder, Sierra, and Strawberry,
better starting pitching down the line and a much-improved
Williams. Probably more Watson's doing than Torre's, but '96
was definitely a better team. If anyone got lucky, it was the
94-95 teams in the regular seasons (which were short, anyway).
 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by Steve C. Wa » Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Anyone else starting to wonder about Torre as a modern-day Casey?  The
>>relative success at St. Louis works against it, of course, but you do have
>>two massive failures followed by what's been so far amazing success.

>Torre has neither Stengel's ego nor his need for media acclaim, and also
>seems to have a life outside of baseball (his family). If the Yanks win
>the Series again this year, something tells me he'll hang it up and
>relax, maybe returning in a few years to the broadcast booth.

>Out of curiosity, how was the relative talent level of those Mets and
>Braves clubs Torre managed. Because in his tenure as Yankee skipper, he's
>struck me as a guy who's great with massaging egos and getting
>personalities to mesh (hell, he's somehow kept Strawberry, Raines and
>Curtis happy, and I bet he keeps them that way if Chili Davis ever gets
>off the DL), but can't dramatically elevate a team's level of play. He's
>no Cito, but he's also no Davey Johnson.

Actually, my take on the Joe Torre club is that this is another example
of Burt Shotton syndrome. No time to go into this now, but briefly,
Bill James described Burt Shotton syndrome in the '84 Abstract: when
a low-key, relaxed manager follows a high-pressure, intense manager with
a strong reputation, often the team will play very well due to the release
of pressure, the desire to show the world that it was the players, not the
manager, who was responsible for the team's success, etc. Examples: 1983
Orioles with Altobelli following Weaver, Shotton following Durocher, etc.

I think Torre following Showalter is the same phenomenon. Thoughts?

--Steve

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve C. Wang                           The University of Chicago

 
 
 

NY Times Op-Ed Piece on '98 Yankees

Post by jmac » Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Actually, my take on the Joe Torre club is that this is another example
> of Burt Shotton syndrome. No time to go into this now, but briefly,
> Bill James described Burt Shotton syndrome in the '84 Abstract: when
> a low-key, relaxed manager follows a high-pressure, intense manager with
> a strong reputation, often the team will play very well due to the release
> of pressure, the desire to show the world that it was the players, not the
> manager, who was responsible for the team's success, etc. Examples: 1983
> Orioles with Altobelli following Weaver, Shotton following Durocher, etc.

> I think Torre following Showalter is the same phenomenon. Thoughts?

The Shotton syndrome tends to be a one-year phenomenon (as it was in
the 2 examples you gave). Like it or not, the Torre Yankees have had
a fair amount of success (to put it mildly) going on 3 years now.

Maybe its a hybrid syndrome: the Casey/Shotton effect