One word: pitching.
 

One more word: heart.
 

One more word: LUCK! In any 5 or 7 game series, the "best" team doesn't always win. There is always a bit of luck involved in the postseason and to win the World Series a team has to win 3 straight series these days, not one or two. Statistically if all the teams in the postseason are equal, then each has a 1 in 8 chance to win the World Series that year. The Yankees have had a run of bad luck as of late, just as they had a run of good luck as they were stringing together the championships in the late 90's. Anyway, I hope the Mets get "lucky" for 2 more series. GO METS!!!!!!
 

I would suggest another word: "fun." The Yankees, even when they're winning, just don't look like they're having any fun. And surely that affects their approach to big games, their sense of camaraderie under pressure, their desire to win.

But I agree with pitching and heart; I disagree a bit with luck, as it's hard to pinpoint any moments in that series with the Tigers where luck seems to have made much of a difference.
 

I think you miss my point. There is a certain randomness to any small subset of baseball games. The Tigers were swept 3 games in a row the last 3 games of the regular season by the Royals, the worst team in baseball. In any 3 or 4 or 5 games, any team can beat any other team. This isn't true in basketball where when the Knicks play Miami, you absolutely know who is going to win. But do the Yankees lack pitching depth, sure they do. I don't buy the heart thing...they all really want to win.
 

Anonymous (5:43 and 10:39) has it right. The best team doesn't always win. With 3 rounds of playoffs, the Yankees should win 1 out of 8 years assuming all teams are equal. Even if the Yankees are substantially better than the other playoff teams, they should win the World Series once every 4 or 5 years. A 6 year stretch without a championship isn't that big of a deal. Too bad spoiled Yankees fans (and King George) don't realize that. The Yankees post-season run from '96-2000 was remarkable. Don't expect anything like that for quite a while.
 

Unfortunately, you won't see Buck O'neil in Cooperstown. The passing this weekend of an icon who fell one vote short of admission to the BHoF is truly sad. It's hard to fathom why Buck wasn't admitted--was it mean-spirited? shortsighted?
 

No, looks like most of you still have it wrong. Perhaps it's the academics here, but no real sports fan would ever employ the BS "luck" argument--or the even more BS "1 in 8" argument--after a postseason loss. Detroit was the better team, decidedly, for those three games. Yankees relied on hitting and that hitting got beat by better pitching. Don't bring that pseudo-intellectual crap to a discussion about baseball. Save that for women in science.
 

Perhaps that is because most "real sports fans" are idiots who know nothing about statistics or probability. Then the Royals were the better team than the vaunted Tigers, decidedly, for the 3 last games of the season...yet you wouldn't ever make that arguement because it is ridiculous on its face. So what exactly is the difference between that series which you would agree that the better team didn't win and the Tigers victory over the Yankees in a 3 game series?