Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, November 02, 2020

ESPN.com | Miller: Ranking every World Series in MLB history

The ones defined by huge moments

. . .

30. 2020: Dodgers over Rays in six
Series leverage: 51st
Game leverage: 64th

They’re going to remember this World Series as the COVID-19 one, of course. Turner disappearing from the Dodgers’ lineup abruptly and without announcement in the eighth inning, but also the tarped-over outfield seats, where home runs kept landing untouched because the quarter-capacity crowd wasn’t allowed within 20 feet of the field.

. . .

The straight-up classics

. . .

6. 2001: Diamondbacks over Yankees in seven

Series leverage: 11th
Game leverage: 45th

This was the year of peak Yankee Destiny: The Yankees had won three World Series in a row, and with a handful of veterans due to retire or hit free agency, this was seen as the capstone year. It was the autumn of Jeter’s Flip, the autumn that the Yankees crushed the 116-win Mariners in the ALCS, the autumn of Jeter’s Mr. November home run, the autumn of anthrax attacks, the Afghanistan War, President George W. Bush throwing out the first pitch, and baseball fans who would typically despise the Yankees actually rooting for them in an ad hoc solidarity post-9/11.

You can find fault with any list like this, but overall, the stratification of the series makes sense to me.

 

Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: November 02, 2020 at 04:45 PM | 28 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, rankings, 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. JRVJ Posted: November 03, 2020 at 12:30 PM (#5987144)
I was just a tad too young (4 years old) for the 1975 one, but of the ones I've seen (every one since 1977), 1991 is the best one for me.

YMMV.
   2. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: November 03, 2020 at 01:06 PM (#5987147)
Same as being a bit too young for '75. I think I take 2001 over 1991 but boy that's six of one/half dozen of another.

1986 is one I always find ranked a bit too high on these lists and this one is no exception. It's memorable for game six but other than that it wasn't that good a series. Game one was exciting and game five tightened up late but games 2,3 and 4 were not very interesting and even game seven wasn't a particularly great game. I think it's more similar to 1997 (ranked 83rd) than belonging in the top ten.
   3. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: November 03, 2020 at 03:10 PM (#5987153)
Nice to see 1924 get credited, although I think third place is still too low. It should probably compete with 1991 for the top slot.

But hey, there's a link in the article to actual game footage! I hadn't seen that before.
   4. Lassus Posted: November 03, 2020 at 03:13 PM (#5987154)
Wicked correction, Jose. Totally convincing.

But more seriously, I think that a lot of the 1986 ranking is subconsciously affected by both Division Series that preceded it that year, which were amazing. As a Mets fan, I never really think of it as just the '86 World Series in a vacuum but the whole pisser.
   5. Lassus Posted: November 03, 2020 at 03:13 PM (#5987155)
This year's was really #30? That's depressing.
   6. Lassus Posted: November 03, 2020 at 03:30 PM (#5987157)
Royals over Mets in five games at #31 thirteen spots ahead of Yankeees over Mets in five games at #44 seems insane.
   7. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: November 03, 2020 at 03:33 PM (#5987159)
The magic of '86, is indeed the entire post season. I say that with no rooting interests in those four participants. It was awesome to watch.
   8. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 03, 2020 at 03:34 PM (#5987160)
Nice to see 1924 get credited, although I think third place is still too low. It should probably compete with 1991 for the top slot.

But hey, there's a link in the article to actual game footage! I hadn't seen that before.


Very cool! Anyone have any idea why Walter Johnson only started twice in that series? I would have thought G 1,4,7 would have been automatic back then.
   9. Booey Posted: November 03, 2020 at 03:51 PM (#5987162)
I'm excited for next year, since my top 3 favorite World Series in the 30+ years I've been a fan all came in the seasons ending with a "1". 1991, 2001, and 2011 were all epic. 2021 is gonna be awesome. :-D
   10. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: November 03, 2020 at 04:02 PM (#5987166)
Very cool! Anyone have any idea why Walter Johnson only started twice in that series? I would have thought G 1,4,7 would have been automatic back then.

Must be because he threw 12 innings [165 pitches] in Game 1 and there were no off days (7 games, 7 straight days). And he was at the end of his career.
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 03, 2020 at 05:51 PM (#5987180)
Must be because he threw 12 innings [165 pitches] in Game 1 and there were no off days (7 games, 7 straight days). And he was at the end of his career.

Thanks!

Was the no off day thing common BITD? I would have thought that with train travel, they'd need 'em.
   12. Mefisto Posted: November 03, 2020 at 06:19 PM (#5987182)
The decision not to start Johnson in Game 7 was tactical. McGraw wanted Terry to face Johnson because Terry had lit him up earlier and was killing it (1.315 OPS for the series). Washington started a right hander (Ogden), then, after just 1 batter, brought in a lefty (Mogridge) to face Terry. McGraw then hit Meusel for Terry at a key point in the 6th and Marberry and Johnson, both righties, relieved after that. Johnson pitched 4 innings and got the win.
   13. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: November 04, 2020 at 05:24 AM (#5987197)
1997 WS regularly underrated. Did any other team EVER tie game 7 in the 9th inning then win it in extras?
   14. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: November 04, 2020 at 11:16 AM (#5987206)
53. 1935: Tigers over Cubs in six
Series leverage: 47th
Game leverage: 25th

It's a tiny detail in an exciting series, but for a long time I've been fascinated by the Cubs' infield alignment for Goose Goslin's walk-off hit, which ended the clinching Game 6. The first baseman is playing about 175 feet from home. The third baseman appears ready for a bunt.


Yeah, what are the Cubs doing exactly? Did they expect him to hit a pop-up? This is a left-handed hitter and all he had to do was hit a grounder to where the first baseman would normally be, and Mickey Cochrane scored from second.
   15. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: November 04, 2020 at 11:42 AM (#5987212)
The decision not to start Johnson in Game 7 was tactical. McGraw wanted Terry to face Johnson because Terry had lit him up earlier and was killing it (1.315 OPS for the series). Washington started a right hander (Ogden), then, after just 1 batter, brought in a lefty (Mogridge) to face Terry. McGraw then hit Meusel for Terry at a key point in the 6th and Marberry and Johnson, both righties, relieved after that. Johnson pitched 4 innings and got the win.


An opener, and LOOGY, and the real starter pitching four innings in relief, that Washington team was just ahead of its time!
   16. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: November 04, 2020 at 11:52 AM (#5987213)
That footage from 1924 is amazing. (Link for those who don't want to click on TFA.) Noticed one guy sliding head first into first base on a non-tag play. The more things change...
   17. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: November 04, 2020 at 11:54 AM (#5987215)
Walter Johnson didn't start Game 7 but he also didn't start Game 4.

Game 1 - Johnson
Game 2 - Zachary
Game 3 - Marberry (3 innings, 5 hits, 3 runs - pulled for a pinch hitter)
Game 4 - Mogridge
Game 5 - Johnson
Game 6 - Zachary
Game 7 - Ogden/Mogridge

They had 3 good starters, Johnson, Zachary and Mogridge.
The real question is why Game 3 was a bullpen game. Fred "Firpo" Marberry was very valuable but he was a swingman with 36 relief appearances and 14 starts that year (plus he was practically a rookie).
   18. My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo Posted: November 04, 2020 at 12:10 PM (#5987216)
1997 WS regularly underrated. Did any other team EVER tie game 7 in the 9th inning then win it in extras?


Thanks a lot for bringing up repressed Tony Fernandez memories.

   19. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 04, 2020 at 01:15 PM (#5987219)
That footage from 1924 is amazing. (Link for those who don't want to click on TFA.) Noticed one guy sliding head first into first base on a non-tag play. The more things change...
Counterpoint: The ridiculous reverse-windmill with the pitching arm leading into the windup, which both pitchers used. What on earth was the "thinking" behind that?
   20. Mefisto Posted: November 04, 2020 at 01:39 PM (#5987220)
@16: That's a fun video. Too bad they don't show a good angle for the game-winning hit. Press accounts say it was a routine grounder to third that hit a rock and bounced into LF.
   21. vortex of dissipation Posted: November 04, 2020 at 03:28 PM (#5987251)
That footage from 1924 is amazing.


The triple at 2:10 must be Frankie Frisch in the ninth inning.
   22. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: November 10, 2020 at 07:34 PM (#5988192)
Was the no off day thing common BITD?

Hmph! Back in my day, you not only played every day, you played all day every day! We played nonuple-headers, with most games going to extra innings! Then we walked all night long on our hands and knees, buck naked, to the next city, then did it all again! And if anybody complained, coach would slice 'em up into lunchmeat and feed him to the rest of the team! Yessir, there was real men in my day...!
   23. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 11, 2020 at 07:50 AM (#5988244)
the ESPN article as various links to game descriptions and wat not including this link to Sabr:

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/october-16-1912-red-sox-take-advantage-of-snodgrasss-muff/

I was wondering if there are more old time WS game summaries at that site, but I am not sure how to navigate it. It doesnt seem very intuitive. help?
   24. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 11, 2020 at 08:06 AM (#5988245)
A couple questions about the methodology used.

1. what is meant by "how likely the next play is to shift each teams chance of winning?" here:


1. Game leverage index, at Baseball-Reference, which measures how close the game is on each play and how likely the next play is to shift each team's chances of winning....


That would simply be a function of the game score/base out state/and the batter pitcher match up, yes? That's kind of a different approach of looking at the game, cause usually you just look at how close the game was, but its different if Big Papi is at the plate rather than Freese? I guess..?

its followed by this sentence:

A game that's close for nine innings and won by a walk-off in the 10th will rate much better than one in which a team jumps ahead early and runs away with it.


That explains that a game that is close for a long time is more exciting than one that's not close and/or not for very long. But that doesnt explain what is meant by "how likely the next play is to shift the chance of winning." so I dunno what is meant there.

Im also not clear on what they mean by "game?" Are they just ranking one game of the series? All games of the series? So its some sort of cumulative average of how close each game in the series was?





   25. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 11, 2020 at 09:05 AM (#5988251)
Its somewhat idiosyncratic list, which of course any sort of list like this is going to be. I guess compounding the problem is purporting to use four, no less than FOUR separate parameters. In addition to two objective indices: games leverage and series leverage, it adds additional "memorable" as well as "historical", so with that many parameters you could very well come up with any sort of ranking and probably find a way to justify it. I mean how the hell do you ever separate memorable from historical? I would just just use such subjective measure as a sort of tie break for similar series and leave it at that, but I guess that's no fun...

its kind of a peeve of mine, because any time you combine an objective measure(s) with subjective measures you are bound to lose whatever advantages you get from either type per se. So the subjective ranking kills whatever you might have learned from the objective and of course the objective fails to capture whatever emotion etc. was found by the subjective. combining both just seems to produce a mush. But I guess that's probably just my problem but anyhow consider these:

The 67 series is ranked 63/110 on the two objective measures of games leverage/series leverage. It had two very close games and 2 pretty good games, so its not really epic by anyone's standards, but it seems reasonably tight enuf and pretty good. BUt why is it 60 slots behind 1968 WS which has 80/115 on these same two parameters and seems to have just two very good games. It does feature a great comeback by the Tigers, down 3 games to 1. Is that it? THe subjective/narrative aspects apparently overtakes our two objective measures.

Its an interesting test case cause these two are so close in time and should be within the memories of at least some primates (its just before I became a fan so i cant account for whatever emotions were involved here).

Maybe even better is looking at the top series that went 5. Here they rank the Kirk Gibson HR series as best, ahead of even that Blue Jay Philly series (a 6 game series) with the Joe Carter walk off. That to me, was a much more interesting series with the Wild Thing and that 15-14 game or whatever it was. The Kirk Gibson HR that is literally the only thing you remember from that series, nothing else really. Maybe someone else does. I dont see it.

My argument for that would be, if you're going to rank them by ENTIRE SERIES and not by GREAT MOMENTS, that 6 games Toronto series has to be more interesting. If that Gibson moment just trumps every other measure than what the hell is the pt of measuring game leverage/series leverage? Same series is also just ahead (by one slot) of the Mazeroski HR series. How? How is that even possible? 1960 had a mind blowing game 7. And Maz's game 7 HR has to be of greater impact than Gibson's in game 1. I dont deny that the 60 series features 3 blowouts so maybe it does seem OK at rank 25 or whatever, but how is it behind the Gibson HR?

Again if it just comes down to comparing two magic moments (which it shouldnt) then one think that Maz HR is more exciting coming in game 7. If you're going to compare the entire series, well how can a 5 game compare to a 7 game?
That just seems to make way too much of that one moment, at the expense of all other measures.

Looking at the rest of the 5 game series, they have both the 1941 series (the Mickey Owen missed third strike) and the recent KC/Mets series over the MIracle Mets 1969 series. That also seems odd. THe 1969 series features more than just one memorable play it has the Brooks play and the Swoboda catch and some great pitching. All or most of those games were very tight from what I recall. Dont most primates think the 69 series was the best 5 game series?


   26. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: November 11, 2020 at 09:46 AM (#5988255)
Look, I won't even quibble with 75 or other memorable ones being above it - I'd disagree, but my disagreement would be based on subjective rooting interests.

But, 2016 is not 12th.

It's 5th, at worst.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 11, 2020 at 11:55 AM (#5988281)
Look, I won't even quibble with 75 or other memorable ones being above it - I'd disagree, but my disagreement would be based on subjective rooting interests.

But, 2016 is not 12th.

It's 5th, at worst.


Look at the game leverage. Only 3 of the 7 were even competitive. I also think 2016 suffers from being lost as much as it was won. I hate when teams win and lose because the managers do stupid ####, even when I don't have a particular rooting interest.
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: November 11, 2020 at 12:19 PM (#5988285)
I hate when teams win and lose because the managers do stupid ####, even when I don't have a particular rooting interest.


That's one of the reasons why I've always felt 2001 was overrated. Brenly took a series the Diamondbacks should have won in 5 or 6 and turned it into one they were lucky to win in 7.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNBA 2021 Playoffs+ thread
(1785 - 12:05am, Jun 21)
Last: rr: cosmopolitan elite

NewsblogJuneteenth Weekend OMNICHATTER, for June 18-20, 2021
(133 - 11:29pm, Jun 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogCollege baseball pitcher Sang Ho Baek dies after complications from Tommy John surgery
(8 - 11:28pm, Jun 20)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogRays call up top prospect Wander Franco
(1 - 10:32pm, Jun 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Padres Need a First Base Upgrade
(2 - 5:25pm, Jun 20)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (June-August 2021)
(3 - 2:46pm, Jun 20)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - In Which Euro 2020 Is Played in 2021
(215 - 2:16pm, Jun 20)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Sox TherapyAnd Breathe
(16 - 10:32am, Jun 20)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogBaseball Reference Adds Negro Leagues Statistics, Rewriting Its Record Book
(151 - 9:03am, Jun 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogHow baseball’s response to RFK’s death inspired some players to fight back and sit out
(1 - 8:45am, Jun 20)
Last: willow19

NewsblogFrom the spitball to Spider Tack: A brief history of foreign substance use by pitchers in baseball
(2 - 12:46am, Jun 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Newsblog2021 NCAA College World Series schedule, live stream, time: Vanderbilt eyes repeat as eight-team field is set
(1 - 8:46pm, Jun 19)
Last: Cblau

NewsblogHe Made Sticky Stuff for MLB Pitchers for 15 Years. Now He's Speaking Out.
(22 - 5:03pm, Jun 19)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(13243 - 10:40am, Jun 19)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-17-2021
(5 - 2:24pm, Jun 18)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Page rendered in 0.3612 seconds
48 querie(s) executed