Championship Memory Score

The first World Series between the American and National League champions was played in 1903 and the most recent in 2012.  The era of World Series play thus covers a total of 110 baseball seasons from 1903 through 2012, although two seasons, 1904 and 1994, did not actually include a World Series.

One way to evaluate a franchise’s success over that long historical period would be to count up its total World Series championships — the Yankees with 27, the Cardinals with 11 and so on down the line.  But  the vividness of historical memory, like that of individual human memory, fades to some extent over time.  It somehow doesn’t seem accurate to say that we think today, from our contemporary perspective, of the Cubs, Indians and Phillies franchises having had equal championship success because they have each won two World Series.  That the Cubs’ championships are both over 100 years old while the Phillies’ World Series victories are more recent, colors our view of these team’s respective World Series success in a way that simply saying they’ve each won two world championships fails to reflect.   

What if we sought to account for this difference by giving each World Series Championship an historical memory score, based on how recently or how long ago it took place?  Taking a first shot at this approach, I’ve tried to keep to a relatively simple formula.  The 1903 World  Series championship, won by the Red Sox franchise in 1903 (before the Red Sox nickname was adopted) gets Boston just one point of Championship Memory Score, having taken place so long, long ago.  A world champion in 1904, had there been one, would have received two points; the world champ for 1905 (the Giants) gets three points, etc. all the way up to the Giants’ win in 2012 that gets them 110 Championship Memory Score points.   The 2013 championship will be worth 111 points.  The table below shows the total current Championship Memory Score points, accumulated using this method, for each of the 30 current franchises.   The table also shows the raw number of World Series championships each franchise has won so you can compare the franchise rankings that result from the raw totals to the results using this Championship Memory Score method.

 

[table id=126 /]

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

36 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dalton Mack
Editor
10 years ago

I wonder how much this would change if we doled out some points to the runner-up (either 1/3 or 1/2 of what the winner earns). Maybe that could give a more full depiction of franchise memory…or I could just be saying this because I want my beloved Rays to have _some_ points.

Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
10 years ago

I concur with Dalton; perhaps a team can receive half of that WS Championship’s point value simply by winning a pennant, and then receive the other half from winning the WS itself. Therefore, the 1903 NL pennant wins the Pirates 0.5 points, the 1904 pennants win the Giants and Red Sox 1 point each, the 1905 AL pennant wins the A’s 1.5 points, etc. up to the 2012 AL pennant earning 55 points for the Tigers and this year’s WS loser earning 55.5 points for having won a pennant.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
10 years ago

This is an interesting angle, birtelcom. I think there are some rich mines beneath the surface. Not all memories are alike. In my case, the Cubs’ two victories used to be well remembered facts; now they seem more like canonical truths, while I struggle to remember whether the Phillies won after 1980 – long postseasons have diluted the Series impact for me, and some members of my age group (e.g., this one) may have an easier time calling older series to mind (much). Along Dalton’s lines, my memory is also infected with the consciousness that the Cubs were a longtime… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago

“Greatest upset sweep in series history” I think the 1990 Reds’ blanking of the heavily-favored A’s deserves a nod, too. _______ In regards to your second paragraph about recent series standing out less in your mind, I’m the same exact way. I can tell you who won in ’93, ’83, ’73, and ’63 far quicker than I can 2003. If you ask me who won in 2010, my mind will freeze for a second but remembering who won in 2000, 1990, 1980, etc. is an automatic thought. I think part of this effect may be that we just haven’t committed… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

bstar, On 1990 vs. 1914: For me, 1990 was the most satisfying upset sweep in my lifetime, though I may have been more amazed in ’54 and ’66 (when my teams got whipped) – I think all three were tremendous upsets. But the magnitude of 1914 seems to me beyond any of these. Philadelphia was in its fourth series in five years, having won the three prior decisively, while Boston had not had a winning season since 1902, had finished last with 100 losses 1909-12, was in 5th 31+ games out in 1913, and had begun the 1914 season 3-16… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago

Your perspective on those years in baseball history is impressive. 60-16?? That’s impressive too! I’m convinced.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

epm- I’m afraid that you are giving far too little credit to the notion that when Johnny Evers took a day off the Braves fielded a double play tandem of Possum and Rabbit, a fact that must have cowed many an opponent into submission. Luckily for Evers (as well as Tinker & Chance) the Deal playing the infield for the Bostons was Charlie at third and not John Wesley “Snake” Deal at first, otherwise no one would now remember the Cubs trio.

Possum to Rabbit to Snake, oh my…

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

That would have been a fabled trio, Hartvig. As it was, though, Possum and Rabbit had to go to Butcher Boy Schmidt for the double. It doesn’t sound promising, does it? But the Braves actually turned a ton of DPs that year, exceeding the runner up by about 20%. And Butcher Boy (a rookie with one year to follow) completed more doubles than any previous 20th century first baseman. I’ve actually never understood how the Braves did what they did with that ragtag bunch. Obviously, the Federal League must have hit the competition more heavily than the Braves, but, as… Read more »

Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
10 years ago

Using the idea I laid out above to have a pennant-winner who does not win the WS gain half of the WS champion’s points, here’s my Memory Score list (I tabulated this by hand, so there may be errors): 1. Yankees — 1,970 2. Cardinals — 908.5 3. Dodgers — 761.5 4. Giants — 570.5 5. Athletics — 492 6. Reds — 407 7. Braves — 396 8. Browns/Orioles — 382.5 9. Tigers — 375 10. Phillies — 354 11. Red Sox — 353 12. Senators/Twins — 254.5 13. Pirates — 247 14. Mets — 235.5 15. Marlins — 196… Read more »

no statistician but
no statistician but
10 years ago

Your reckoning lines up well with reality, 14 of the top 16 being original franchises, and the two interlopers being teams with 2 WS wins in later times. Poor Chicago, all those Cubs pennant winners up to 1945, all those second place White Sox teams of the ’50s and 60’s.

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago

If you’d done this analysis three years ago, the Cubs, who have won ten pennants, would have had the same raw score, while the Rangers would have had zero. It took two years for the Rangers to catch up, and they didn’t even have to win a World Series.

Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
10 years ago
Reply to  Bryan O'Connor

That’s the idea of adding a point (or a half-point for the WS loser) each year. It takes into account that each new World Series should be easier for the public to remember than past World Series.

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago

I get the concept, INH. Just expressing how remarkable it is that the Cubs’ success is so ancient that it only took the Rangers two WS losses to match the Cubs in this metric.

bstar
bstar
10 years ago

I love the idea of giving the World Series loser some points, but I think giving the winner only double the points of the loser may not be enough. If you ask any baseball player if they would rather have 1 World Series appearance and 1 win (1 point) or 2 appearances and two losses (also 1 point), 100% of the players are going to say the former. So maybe a weighting of 3/1 (3 losses = 1 win, point-wise) or 5/2 (3 losses is slightly better than 1 win point-wise) might be a more realistic point system. Simply doing… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

Here’s an example, and again let’s assume that all years have equal point value. Focusing on the years 1988-1993, which result would you prefer for YOUR team? Toronto Blue Jays: won ’92 (1 pt), won ’93 (1 pt) = 2 points Oakland Athletics: lost ’88 (half-pt), won ’89 (1 pt), lost ’90 (half-pt) = 2 points By the 2/1 (or 1/0.5) split, these results are equal. But does that reflect reality? I think the Blue Jay fans look back more fondly on their 2-year reign as WS champs than A’s fans look at ’88-’90. There’s got to be some, “wow,… Read more »

John Autin
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

bstar, I’m not sure you can find relative values for WS titles and for pennants that fit all the different situations. I doubt you’d even find broad agreement about whether Blue Jays fans feel better about their 1992-93 titles (which were followed by 4 losing years) than the 1988-90 A’s fans felt about their “1 for 3.” My own feelings: The value of a pennant or WS title can change with what came just before and after. One pennant amid a bunch of blah years might feel better than what your Braves did in the ’90s. At the same time,… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I don’t know, JA, can’t you say the same about birt’s original list and INH’s study @7? They’re not considering relative value and context either, so why should that criticism fall on my idea alone?

I’m simply suggesting a re-weighting of winner/loser. I don’t think 1 / 0.5 is realistic.

Wouldn’t Texas gladly trade their 2011-12 runner-up finishes for St. Louis’ 2011 ring and no WS the next year in a heartbeat?

We’ll have to disagree about Jays/A’s. For me, I’d rather go 2 for 2 than 1 for 3. Sounds like a good idea for a poll….

John Autin
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

bstar, I’m sorry — it does sound like I was criticizing you alone. That wasn’t what I meant — I didn’t even mean to criticize anyone; I was just commenting on the difficulty of the endeavor. And I was lazy & didn’t read the whole thread.

Try to feel flattered that I made a point of reading your remarks! 🙂

Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

I like the idea of favoring 3-win WS losers that push the WS to 7 games… but is a 1-win WS loser any particularly more memorable, on average, than a victim of a sweep? Is a 1-win WS loser any particularly more memorable, on average, than a 2-win WS loser? I don’t think so, considering that there are many teams that have fallen in a WS that didn’t reach the winner-take-all game, but are more remembered for winning the pennant in dramatic fashion or other reasons. (see: 1919 White Sox, 1951 Giants, 2007 Rockies, 2008 Rays, etc) Perhaps, we could… Read more »

Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

I would be willing to redo my data at the 5:3:2 ratio, but I do not have the time tonight. If time and Internet connection permit (I may lose power due to TS Andrea sometime in the near future), I could redo my data tomorrow.

mosc
mosc
10 years ago

I think a bell curve falloff makes more sense than a slight deduction. People remember recent history with a much higher weight and the past will non asymptotically approach zero but instead some steady state point value (say, 10% of the most recent championship). Basically I would use a parabolic formula with the most recent championship at 100pts and the oldest at 10 points, plotting each year on that curve. Non-linear, less intuitive, but probably better representative of the public eye. I also like the idea of giving half the points to getting there and losing. People remember the Buffalo… Read more »

Doug
Doug
10 years ago

Shows how woeful the Red Sox have been.

Even with two WS titles in the past decade, they still trail the Reds, As and Dodgers, none of whom have won more recently than 23 years ago. And, Boston’s just one spot ahead of the Pirates, who haven’t won in almost 35 years.

no statistician but
no statistician but
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

I think the limitations of this approach are implicit in your comment. The Bosox and the Cubs probably rank fairly high in the general awareness of baseball fans, in part for their near misses, whereas the Orioles, let’s say, had a twenty year run of excellence that ended 30 years ago, and they’s been off the radar since then—more or less—to most people outside of their diehard fan base. Birtelcom: it’s probably just me, but since the leagues split in three and the wildcard stuff came in, I have a hard time caring about the World Series the way I… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
10 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

Good points, birtelcom (except for the gratuitous pot shot at old fogeys). But there are other respects in which the expanded postseason has an impact on “memorable success.” On the “success” part, it used to be that success was basically having the league’s best W-L record. In the Baseball Neolithic (my era, though I think this holds for the Paleolithic too), my friends and I did not memorize Series winners – we memorized Series contestants and the outcomes. Pennant winners were truly recognized and remembered as champions. Playoffs, of course, were for true ties only, and with so few in… Read more »

no statistician but
no statistician but
10 years ago

epm:

Your elucidation of the situation deserves congratulation.

The clinker team you fail to mention that I think of with the ’73 Mets is the ’87 Twins, who actually scored fewer runs than their opponents in the regular season, but were invincible in the Metrodome in the post-season.

The team’s seasonal home-road split was almost reversed: 56-25, 29-52. Four teams in the East had better records than the Twins.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
10 years ago

nsb, A very good example! But it does mix two issues. Not only were the Twins beneficiaries of the new dispensation, but also of the terrible acoustics of the Hubie Dome, which allowed the fans to create an unreasonable level of stress for visiting teams – as the fans well knew. The influence of the Dome on the postseason was such a headline item (and such a distortion of baseball, in my view), that it’s the only thing that the ’87 Series calls to mind for me. (Until that time, there had been no all-home-winner Series, although four times the… Read more »

RJ
RJ
10 years ago

“Teams that have clinched a postseason berth may even let up on the gas with a divisional title at stake.”

Probably the only good thing about the introduction of the second wildcard is that it makes not winning the division relatively undesirable. Ask Texas last year.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
10 years ago

birtelcom@27 – You and I share a heritage, and my Brooklyn mother’s angst over the Bums’ 0-7 record is a sharp memory, as is the moment it was dissolved in ’55: I never, ever saw her happier. My point wasn’t that losing the Series didn’t hurt, it’s that the losers were memorable in a way they may not be now (especially when a Series loser with weak qualifications makes the Series no contest, like the Padres in ’98). In terms of “franchise success” and Series losses, perhaps Roger Kahn’s “The Boys of Summer” could be relevant evidence: the years that… Read more »

statmattmitchell
statmattmitchell
10 years ago

The best part of this list is the fact that NONE is higher on the list than the Royals, Indians, and Cubs WS victories. Interesting idea though, including the discussion in the comments.