The Tino Myth.

Just don't bring up Tino's postseason batting average ... or why he couldn't will his team to victory vs. Arizona in '01:

"That's one reason Martinez remains a near-cult hero in New York. He's the link to a better time in Yankees history, despite three straight 100-win regular seasons since 2002. The Martinez-era Yankees weren't as gifted as the more recent editions, but they were the product of a different philosophy – better chemistry instead of just the biggest payroll."

Klapisch neatly summarizes the Ridiculous Notion that has become Legend.

I especially like the idea that the Martinez-era Yankees weren't as gifted as the more recent editions.

Let's quickly review the Martinez-era Yankees:

The '96 Yankees were an underdog team for sure with a relatively subpar pitching staff and a lame bullpen (other than Mariano, of course) that came through at the right time. (Ever notice how the '96 team is just sort of forgotten, obliterated in our collective memories by the '98 team?)

The '96 team wasn't all that gifted, I'll give Klapisch that much. But they also damn sure didn't have chemistry. Heck, Tino didn't even play in the playoffs too much that year. He was benched most of the World Series and, when he played, he hit a chemistry-reducing .091.

So how could they win with lesser talent and no chemistry? Happens all the time in baseball. Happens every day in baseball.

As for the '98 - '00 teams: Not gifted? Chemistry was more important than the high payroll?

I could list the players and the stats, but what's the point, really? While your starting pitchers are winning 20 games left and right and Mariano Rivera is your closer and everybody is hitting .300 with speed and power and a lot of walks ... Klapisch doesn't remember a particularly talented team. Just a team that tried harder.

This argument is a dead end. Those teams won because they were flat-out good. But if Klapisch insists on attributing their success to ethereal qualities such as "chemistry" rather than team batting average and team ERA, then I can't disprove the notion.

Klapisch has the burden of proof and he certainly hasn't proven his theory, but it's impossible to prove the contrary. Maybe they won because of chemistry, maybe they won because of the Ghost of Babe Ruth, maybe they won because of Joe Torre, maybe they won because I was watching the games while wearing my lucky underwear.

It is really a case study in the difference between coincidence and correlation. The Yankees won while Tino was on their team; they didn't necessarily win because he was on their team.

Tino should be able to help the '05 Yankees because he's still a good player. But if they're truly expecting his mere presence to magically create those eleven wins in October ... then ... then ... well, then they just don't understand anything. I'm sorry, but you don't. None of you do. You're all wrong.


"The Yankees would gladly take 20-something home runs this summer – not to mention a nostalgia rush, too, back to the days when the Bombers spent less and won more."

That's a neat trick right there. Is he seriously trying to re-imagine the '98 Yankees as a low-budget, homegrown, gritty bunch of overachieving underdogs?

For an entire four years, the Yankees have not managed to get the job done in October (yes, it's so torturous being a Yankee fan, isn't it?).

But the Torre-era Dynasty spent so much money on payroll that baseball literally felt compelled to rewrites its rules.