Random disconnects from reality.

Random Disconnect From Reality #1

While watching the Yankees on Fox on Saturday afternoon, a graphic which displayed "Could'a, Should'a," or something to that effect. "Missed Opportunities," describing the Yankees' inability to beat bad teams during the '05 season.

Anybody who has been paying attention for the past ten years would have known that the Yankees don't make the playoffs by beating the good teams, they make the playoffs by dominating the bad teams in a manner that Boston has not been able to do.

The supposedly boring, unwatchable games vs. Tampa Bay and Kansas City determine the AL East regular season champion, and they always have. They're all Big Games, even though nobody bothers to pay attention.

This year, the pattern has flipped, and it is the difference between first and second place in the AL East.

Anyway, Fox displayed a graphic which supposedly demontrated how poorly the Yankees were playing against the truly awful teams:

Kansas City: 0-3
Tampa Bay : 4-9
Milwaukee : 1-2

Sure, the Yankees are expected to beat the Brewers, the Yankees have a much higher payroll than the Brewers, and perhaps the Yankees should beat the Brewers.

But the Disconnect from Reality the Brewers being mentioned in the same breath as KC and TB.

KC is 42 games under .500, TB is 23 games under .500, and the Brewers are just 3 games under .500.


Random Disconnect from Reality #2

Saw Lupica on the Sports Reporters again (Why do I do this to myself? Why, indeed?) claiming, once again, that the Mets were about to win NY back from the Yankees. He even went as far to say that he's rooting for the Mets to win the wild card, which partially helps explain why his baseball analyses are so distorted.

The Mets may be more exciting than the Yankees, the Mets may have a better storyline than the Yankees. I think the writers are sick and tired of the Yankees, and this illustrates the fundamental difference between a fan, who follows the team because it's a passion or a hobby, and a writer, who follows the team because it's a job.

Still, I'd be interested in Lupica's criteria for success.

Here are attendance figures for 2005. Not the only criteria for comparison, but the most obvious place to start.

Yankees in first with an average of 50,000. Mets in eighth with an average of 36,000. Not even close.

The Mets are up from 2004, naturally, while the Yankees have somehow managed to squeeze 2,000 more per game into the Stadium. But the only success the Mets are having is in comparison to past failures.

If the Mets and others keep insisting that the Mets can only achieve success by outperforming and outdrawing the Yankees, then it's not happening anytime soon. Get over it and worry about the Braves.