Tuesday, October 11, 2005

New York follows Boston

If one can't make it, apparently neither can the other.
The Yankees' season lasted only a couple days longer than the Red Sox's season. Boston was shown the door by the White Sox Friday; New York was dispatched by Los Angeles in Game 5 of their series Monday night.
When the Yankees and Red Sox meet with the AL pennant on the line, which they have done three times since 1999, it seems like destiny. When the Red Sox became the first baseball team ever to rally from a 3-0 deficit in a best-of-seven series last year, the Yankees were the only team who could have been their opponent.
For the record, however, the Yankees have made the ALCS seven times since 1996, losing only once. In addition to the Red Sox (1999, 2003, 2004) the Yankees have also faced the Mariners (2000 and 2001) the Indians (1998) and the Orioles (1996).
Maybe it's less about destiny and more about big pockets.
Still, the Yankees double-or-nothing approach is odd. With last year as the lone exception, they have either been knocked out in the first round or made it to the World Series since Joe Torre took the managerial reigns. A team that makes the ALCS with such regularity, you'd think, would have a crooked number in the loss column.
The Angels were the last team to take the Yankees out in the first round, in 2002. That year, they won the World Series. We'll see if history repeats itself.
Even without the Red Sox or Yankees, this year's ALCS is hardly a victory for the little guy. The Angels come in sporting big-market backing and one of the top payrolls in baseball. The White Sox might be the forgotten middle child in Chicago, but they still managed a $70 million payroll.
In the NLCS, the Cardinals and Astros are among baseball's more well-endowed teams as well.
The TV ratings might suffer as disgusted New Englanders and New Yorkers flick off their TV sets and busy themselves with fantasy football, but this is still a big-market field remaining in the playoffs. Money still rules in this game.

No comments: