Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Joe Blogs: It’s All About October

Average victory total for World Series champions:

1905 to 1968: 99 wins.
1969 to 1993: 97 wins.
1995 to present: 94 wins

* * *

Here’s another way to look at it:

• From 1903 through 1968, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series a little more than 50% of the time.
• When four teams made the playoffs, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series 28% of the time (7 out of 25)
• Since 1995, the team with the best record has won the World Series 17% of the time (3 out of 18) and one of those winners, the 2007 Red Sox, actually tied for the best record.

Jim Furtado Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:17 PM | 35 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: giants, joe posnanski, tigers, world series

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. BDC Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4288453)
2007 Red Sox, actually tied for the best record


But then beat the team they tied with (Cleveland) 4-3 in the ALCS, so it's hardly like the tiers were ambushed somewhere in the first round or other league somewhere.
   2. Nasty Nate Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4288459)
• From 1903 through 1968, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series a little more than 50% of the time.
• When four teams made the playoffs, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series 28% of the time (7 out of 25)
• Since 1995, the team with the best record has won the World Series 17% of the time (3 out of 18) and one of those winners, the 2007 Red Sox, actually tied for the best record.


I wonder what the percentages would be of teams with the best record including the postseason winning the world series. E.G. the 1999 Yankees had a better winning percentage than the Braves when you look at the larger sample.
   3. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4288470)
But teams are not playing the same schedule in the postseason.
   4. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4288472)
• From 1903 through 1968, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series a little more than 50% of the time.
• When four teams made the playoffs, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series 28% of the time (7 out of 25)
• Since 1995, the team with the best record has won the World Series 17% of the time (3 out of 18) and one of those winners, the 2007 Red Sox, actually tied for the best record.


Interestingly, that seems to about exactly what we should expect.

I wonder if 1981 thrown out of the study entirely? It should have been, since it wasn't the number of teams that made it impossible for the team with the best record from winning, but the criteria for inclusion.


But teams are not playing the same schedule in the postseason.


With very few exceptions,* they weren't playing the same schedules in the regular season either.

* The AL qualifiers from 1979-1993 were close enough to consider those schedules "same."

   5. Booey Posted: October 30, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4288556)
From the article:

I don't think people watch baseball the same way they watch basketball or hockey (or, certainly, the NFL).


Is this even true? Dropping ratings or not, doesn't the World Series still generally score higher than the NBA Finals and WAY higher than the Stanley Cup?
   6. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 30, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4288559)
Last year's NBA Finals averaged a 9.7 rating. This year's WS won't top that.
   7. Booey Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4288561)
Last year's NBA Finals averaged a 9.7 rating. This year's WS won't top that.


Is that typical or an exception, though? I haven't looked for several years, but last I did the WS outrated the Finals more often than not.
   8. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4288567)
Is this even true? Dropping ratings or not, doesn't the World Series still generally score higher than the NBA Finals and WAY higher than the Stanley Cup?


WRT the NBA - if you look at 10 years of data, MLB comes out ahead easily - something like 10.7 to 9.0 - but over the past three years, the NBA has averaged a 10.3 vs. MLB's 9.3, coming out ahead each year. Times may be a-changin.
   9. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4288578)

WRT the NBA - if you look at 10 years of data, MLB comes out ahead easily - something like 10.7 to 9.0 - but over the past three years, the NBA has averaged a 10.3 vs. MLB's 9.3, coming out ahead each year. Times may be a-changin.


Two factors working against MLB in these comparisons: the World Series is up against far more original programming in October than the NBA Finals.

Second (and I just learned this elsewhere), the NBA Finals are only played on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, the three best days for television viewing. The World Series isn't that beholden to the TV gods, yet.



   10. Derb Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4288588)
Two factors working against MLB in these comparisons: the World Series is up against far more original programming in October than the NBA Finals.

Second (and I just learned this elsewhere), the NBA Finals are only played on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, the three best days for television viewing. The World Series isn't that beholden to the TV gods, yet.


Third, the NBA is a more star-driven league, and people want to see stars. True, this year's World Series had Miggy, Prince, and Verlander, but Miggy and Prince only got 4 or so AB's a game, where Verlander only played in one game. In the NBA, you're going to see Kobe and Lebron go head to head all game.

I would rather watch any baseball game over any basketball game, but to the casual sport fan, the NBA just has more excitement to it.
   11. Booey Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4288600)
Second (and I just learned this elsewhere), the NBA Finals are only played on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, the three best days for television viewing. The World Series isn't that beholden to the TV gods, yet.


Huh. I've been watching the NBA for 20+ years and I never noticed that. Has that always been true?
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4288607)
Huh. I've been watching the NBA for 20+ years and I never noticed that. Has that always been true?


I have no idea, not having watched an entire NBA game since the last time I covered one (1994, maybe). I googled WS vs. NBA Finals and there was some TV junkie (not a baseball apologist, as far as I could tell) explaining how the NBA has arranged its schedule to play the games on the best nights for viewing.
   13. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4288622)
Huh. I've been watching the NBA for 20+ years and I never noticed that. Has that always been true?


They switched in 2004. From 1991-2003 they played Weds/Fri/Sunday. 1990 and earlier they played Tues/Thurs/Sun. The 1986 series started on a Monday, but otherwise was Tues/Thurs/Sun. Before that they seem to have played any old day.
   14. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4288647)
Just not true. Sometimes its all about Rocktober. Sometimes its even all about November.
   15. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: October 30, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4288719)
I read this article and think of the Dodgers. All that money on offense when its pitching that matters in the second season. The Giants just watched them take on all the Red Sox cargo, HanRam and Victorino and they couldn't even play .500 ball. Josh Beckett? He was once lights out in October, which is why the Red Sox paid all that money but I haven't seen anything that would make me confident to roll him out there in October in a long time. Mattingly has a lot on his hands going in to next year, and potentially if they mesh and Crawford comes back - a ton of everyday offense, but if they don't give Kershaw some serious help in that starting rotation, they could win 95 games and be swept like NY. Maybe they ought to do as Pos suggests and load up for October instead of June.
   16. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4288748)
In 1980, the World Series averaged a 32.8 rating and the NBA Finals were shown on tape delay. The classic Magic Game 6 wasn't even shown live on television.

The fact that the two sports finals have essentially equal TV ratings now is a fascinating change, any way you slice it. As is the fact that World Series TV ratings have fallen roughly 80 percent in a generation.

That secular change shouldn't impact fans' enjoyment of the World Series. Watch and enjoy.
   17. Greg K Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4288751)
Huh. I've been watching the NBA for 20+ years and I never noticed that. Has that always been true?

I didn't notice until a couple years ago that baseball series' usually start on Fridays and Mondays.

I'd be shocked at how unobservant I can be sometimes if I was the observant type.
   18. AndrewJ Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4288756)
In 1980, the World Series averaged a 32.8 rating and the NBA Finals were shown on tape delay. The classic Magic Game 6 wasn't even shown live on television.

The fact that the two sports finals have essentially equal TV ratings now is a fascinating change, any way you slice it. As is the fact that World Series TV ratings have fallen roughly 80 percent in a generation.


Not just baseball -- people under the age of 30 may not believe this, but once upon a time one of the year's highest-rated shows was -- invariably -- the Miss America Pageant.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4288758)
. All that money on offense when its pitching that matters in the second season.


Maybe, but it's not "predictable" pitching that matters. Best pitcher in baseball didn't do so hot, a washed up Zito and an all season long struggling Lincecum did pretty good. The mighty Phillies pitching was beat by a Cardinal team last year which featured, at best one ace level talent. And of course you have the Braves, the team that has proven beyond any doubt, that it's not all about the pitching for October.


   20. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4288760)
I read this article and think of the Dodgers. All that money on offense when its pitching that matters in the second season.


(a) Your premise is not really true;

(b) The Dodgers couldn't score for ####, and they tried to fix that problem.
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4288762)
I didn't notice until a couple years ago that baseball series' usually start on Fridays and Mondays.


Are you talking about regular season? In the regular season, as a general rule, games will always be played on Tues, Wed, Fri, Sat and Sun, barring a rare event. The only time you'll have off days in the season is Mon/Thursday. (barring weird events such as the stadium being out for another sport or the very rare 2 game series(with advent of interleague play all season long, that might change)
   22. Greg K Posted: October 30, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4288770)
Are you talking about regular season? In the regular season, as a general rule, games will always be played on Tues, Wed, Fri, Sat and Sun, barring a rare event. The only time you'll have off days in the season is Mon/Thursday. (barring weird events such as the stadium being out for another sport or the very rare 2 game series(with advent of interleague play all season long, that might change)

I did mean the regular season. This is how observant I am. What I noticed a couple years ago is that there is a thing called a "weekend series" with games usually running Friday to Sunday. This was embarrassing enough so I tried to wing the rest of it and guess the other day of the week when a series often starts.
   23. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: October 30, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4288771)
but to the casual sport fan, the NBA just has more excitement to it.

Well sure, the last 2 minutes. The NBA is a procession of regular scoring that becomes interesting when the game is close and it's very late in the game.

The NBA totally transformed when you had the Showtime Lakers of the 80's taking on Bird's Celtics in the finals nearly every year. Two perfect foes who always played hard, showed a healthy respect for each other and were just fun to watch. Then of course, MJ came along and the NBA had the first true sports star who transcended both gender and race.
   24. Walt Davis Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#4288809)
From 1903 through 1968, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series a little more than 50% of the time.
• When four teams made the playoffs, the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series 28% of the time (7 out of 25)
• Since 1995, the team with the best record has won the World Series 17% of the time (3 out of 18)


The sample sizes are small, especially for the latter two, but interestingly:

1903-1968: If the playoffs were random, you'd expect this to be 50%. They say it's a bit better than that but not how much. Sounds awfully close to random.
1969-1993: Random would be 1 of 4 ... expected would be 6.25 so just about as close to random as you could get.
1995-2012: Random would be 1 of 8 (the team with the best record makes it to the round of 8 of course) or 2.25 out of 18 so this is about as close to random as you could get.

Does anybody know the actual number for 1903-1968? By randomness, the winningest team should have one 41.5 WS titles. I'm guessing the actual number is about 46?

I thought this was the more depressing stat:

Since 1905, there have been 90 teams that have won 100 games. This has been a standard of excellence for a very long time. How did those teams fair?

From 1903 to 1968, 40 of the 45 played in the World Series. Obviously. There was no hurdle between them and the World Series. And 25 of the 45 actually won the World Series.

OK, add one layer of playoffs, and it changes somewhat. From 1969 to 1994, 24 teams won 100 games. 19 of the 24 made the World Series, but only eight of them won.

And since 1995? You ready for it? Twenty-one teams have won 100 games. Two have won the World Series. Two. The 1998 Yankees and the 2009 Yankees. Even more incredible … FOURTEEN of the 21 100-win teams did not even reach the World Series.


Which goes back to the thread on odds. You're a fool if you bet on anything that doesn't pay out at least 12:1 no matter how good you think that team is.
   25. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4288829)

1903-1968: If the playoffs were random, you'd expect this to be 50%. They say it's a bit better than that but not how much. Sounds awfully close to random.
1969-1993: Random would be 1 of 4 ... expected would be 6.25 so just about as close to random as you could get.
1995-2012: Random would be 1 of 8 (the team with the best record makes it to the round of 8 of course) or 2.25 out of 18 so this is about as close to random as you could get.


But in each case, it's on the high side of random, which makes sense when you're looking at the team with the best record. As I said, it looks like just what you might expect when you're starting with the team that is slightly better than the others in the field (though in a sport where the better team doesn't win all that often).

   26. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4288835)
Not just baseball -- people under the age of 30 may not believe this, but once upon a time one of the year's highest-rated shows was -- invariably -- the Miss America Pageant.

I once read that in much of the 1970s, the top ten programs every year would include the Miss America pageant, the Academy Awards, the Super Bowl, and the annual Bob Hope special.
   27. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4288867)
Never said anything about predictable pitching. My point was spending 250-300 million on offense might not be the best play since randomly hot pitching or in your parlance "unpredictable" pitching wins in the new second season.
   28. Sunday silence Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4288875)
I think the first question you need to answer when you get to this level of discourse is: "How accurate are whatever measures (apparently wins/losses in a season for many) we choose at determining the best team.

I mean, lets face it, tons of people say the playoffs is a crap shoot; I cant rightly disagree with them, but that sure as hell doesnt mean each and every regular season game was determined in strict accordance with mathematical certainty either.

Last time I ran some numbers, quickly, it seems that whatever measure you use. Such as runs for/against, OPS+/ERA+; or whatever. There is at least a +/- of 5 games (probably more like 6 games ) for teams that appear to be statistically equivalent. I mean as long as you measure both defense and offense. I made groups of teans that were excellent, or very good or pretty good (I think there was at least 5 categories of good) and you kept find a variance of about 5 or 6 games from top to bottom.



the 2nd question that you should consider is: can we get a more valid measure of a current teams strength by using a smaller data set that is closer to the current time? E.g." teams with a pct. of .700 in Sept win X amount of world series..." Or last ten games. or last 20 whatever.

Surely there must be some question that a data set compiled over the past 6 months maybe somewhat less than ideal measure if the issue who is the best team RIGHT NOW. I mean that's obvious on its face isnt it? Would anyone disagree? if the issue is which team is best right now; surely data in April is less useful that data from June, and July, etc...

So one has to consider whether it is possible to refine the data and get a closer estimate of who the "best" team is. Or for that matter whether the time period shoud be extended, i.e. is there any statistical evidence that taking a 2 year or 3 year measure of a ball club is a better indicator of current level of "greatness" or "superiority" or whatever you want to define it as..
   29. Sunday silence Posted: October 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4288890)

I thought this was the more depressing stat:
....

From 1903 to 1968, 40 of the 45 played in the World Series. Obviously. There was no hurdle between them and the World Series. And 25 of the 45 actually won the World Series.


why should this be depressing for you Walt? Putting aside sample size for the moment, this data might suggest that the "better" team (however we define it) actually won I guess 55% of the series.

A better way to do this would be to use game by game winning pct. as should be apparent in a minute. OK...what does 55% series winning translate into game winning pct? I dunno, I did this calculation awhile ago. Lets say it's a .580 winning pct? someone else can post better idea. That means these teams are winning against the 2nd or 3rd best or whatever team at a .580 clip.

THere are excellent teams out there that won at a .600 clip like the Big Red Machine. So this actually looks pretty good. Doesnt it?
   30. rlc Posted: October 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4288929)
Since 1905, there have been 90 teams that have won 100 games. This has been a standard of excellence for a very long time. How did those teams fair?

From 1903 to 1968, 40 of the 45 played in the World Series. Obviously. There was no hurdle between them and the World Series. And 25 of the 45 actually won the World Series.

OK, add one layer of playoffs, and it changes somewhat. From 1969 to 1994, 24 teams won 100 games. 19 of the 24 made the World Series, but only eight of them won.

And since 1995? You ready for it? Twenty-one teams have won 100 games. Two have won the World Series. Two. The 1998 Yankees and the 2009 Yankees. Even more incredible … FOURTEEN of the 21 100-win teams did not even reach the World Series.


Well, that's one way of summarizing it. Here's another:

From 1903 to 1968, 5 out of 45 100 win teams didn't play in the postseason. That's 11% of the teams.

From 1969 to 1994, 2 out of 24 100 win teams didn't play in the postseason. That's 8% of the teams.

And since 1995? You ready for it? All the 100 win teams have played in the postseason. EVERY SINGLE ONE has had a chance to win the World Championship.

---

Neither of these two summaries is inaccurate.
   31. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 30, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4288937)
FREE SALOMON TORRES!
   32. Walt Davis Posted: October 30, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4288944)
why should this be depressing for you Walt?

The first 100-win team factoid isn't depressing; the second one doesn't seem too bad; it's the trend suggested by the third one. 2 out of 21 won the WS, only 7 of 21 even made the WS. Now 7 of 21 is a good bit better than a random 1 of 4 but that's for 100-win teams.

OK...what does 55% series winning translate into game winning pct? I dunno, I did this calculation awhile ago. Lets say it's a .580 winning pct? someone else can post better idea. That means these teams are winning against the 2nd or 3rd best or whatever team at a .580 clip.

You've got that backwards. A true .55 game win percentage relative to another team would win a 7-game series about 60% of the time. A 55% 7-game series win percentage is somewhere around 52-53% game win percent.

If you want to pursue that line of argument, it leads to the idea that even 162 games isn't enough to establish "best" with sufficient certainty such that the playoffs are truly a crapshoot among nearly indistinguishable teams selected in a largely arbitrary process. Which would be sufficiently accurate but it's a lot easier to maintain the illusion for a 162-game season than it is a 12-win playoff.

By the way, this is a year in which I think there were a bunch of roughly equal teams and the playoffs were pretty much a true crapshoot. The Giants weren't an inferior team ... the Tigers might have been the worst team in the tourney but they weren't pulling off huge upsets to get there.
   33. Sunday silence Posted: October 31, 2012 at 01:18 AM (#4289004)
You've got that backwards. A true .55 game win percentage relative to another team would win a 7-game series about 60% of the time. A 55% 7-game series win percentage is somewhere around 52-53% game win percent..


thanks for posting the math on that; those are good numbers to remember. but it doesnt surprise me, I would not expect the best team playing another team almost as good would be winning at a .580 clip. a .520 winning pct. seems just about right for a team with a slight advantage.

But then there's another detail we should add. We shouldnt count those games where the two teams in the world series are statistically equal. So any two teams w/in 5 games of one another should be considered a push, i.e. the w/l numbers arent statistically different enough to prove there's a difference. So through out all those matchups. What do we have left?
   34. Sunday silence Posted: October 31, 2012 at 01:41 AM (#4289020)
So going from 1903-1968, and using only those teams that were more than 5 games better than the other team, I get:

.583 winning pct for better team (119-85) and;

.622 better team wins the series (23-14).

So for the first 66 years of the world series, this is perhaps too good to be true, the better team wins at a rate that maybe even better than could be expected.

So the first data set suggests that the world series is less of a crap shoot and more of a true reflection of the better team. However, this assumes: league parity, seasonal records reflect current team strength, etc. Lots of assumptions in there.

It would be interesting to do the same thing, but only use the final month of the regular season as a barometer of how good the teams are.

Someone else can do the recent years.
   35. Sunday silence Posted: October 31, 2012 at 02:03 AM (#4289023)
The first 100-win team factoid isn't depressing; the second one doesn't seem too bad; it's the trend suggested by the third one. 2 out of 21 won the WS, only 7 of 21 even made the WS. Now 7 of 21 is a good bit better than a random 1 of 4 but that's for 100-win teams.


yeah but dont you think you have to do a little more refinement of the data here? You dont know how many of those teams were playing teams just as good as they were. I mean until you start to break it down that way, these numbers dont mean much. 7 out of 21 sounds bad, but who knows? Maybe there were years where 5 or 6 teams had stellar records, obviously only one them can win. That would mess up the data right there.

The pt. is, that data needs more refinement before you can draw any conclusions.

Again, breaking it down by wins/losses would be an obvious first step.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCurt Schilling Reveals He Was Diagnosed With Mouth Cancer in February, Believes Chewing Tobacco Was the Cause
(3 - 6:22pm, Aug 20)
Last: Zach

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4465 - 6:18pm, Aug 20)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogGiants plan to protest bizarre loss at Wrigley
(35 - 6:17pm, Aug 20)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(12 - 6:11pm, Aug 20)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogBP: Moonshot: The Analytic Value of the Crack of the Bat
(7 - 6:08pm, Aug 20)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogPrado at second base not how Yanks Drew it up
(41 - 6:07pm, Aug 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-20-2014
(25 - 5:50pm, Aug 20)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogBrewers Form Creative Council
(1 - 5:46pm, Aug 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogBrisbee: The 10 most underrated players in baseball, part 2
(6 - 5:45pm, Aug 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-20-2014
(18 - 5:41pm, Aug 20)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(440 - 5:31pm, Aug 20)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogSellout Crowd Turns out in AAA Charlotte for Native Son Carlos Rodon
(6 - 5:21pm, Aug 20)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogRusney Castillo rumors: Decision imminent for Cuban outfielder
(21 - 4:52pm, Aug 20)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSabermetrics Gets Soft «
(3 - 4:42pm, Aug 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogLester return to Boston a long shot; Cubs, Yankees are likely players
(2 - 4:15pm, Aug 20)
Last: AROM

Page rendered in 0.2613 seconds
54 querie(s) executed