I mean that lovingly. But we all know that San Francisco’s different — and a place where difference is celebrated. In that vein, and while Giants fans are still too giddy to feel how affronted, let’s see just how offbeat is this dynasty of 2010-12-14.
As usual, all stats used here come from the better-than-sliced-bread Baseball-Reference.com, plus a bit of Excel elbow grease.
There are now 47 World Series winners who won it for at least the second time in five years. I compiled the won-lost records for each 5-year span culminating in that second WS win (or third, etc.). The worst 5-year records:
- 1991 Twins — .525 for 1987-91 … 85-77 equivalent in a modern season
- 2012 Giants — .533 for 2008-12 … 86-76
- 2014 Giants — .538 for 2010-14 … 87-75
- 1967 Cardinals — .557 for 1963-67 … 90-72
The average for all 47 teams is .606 (98-64), or 11 more wins per year than these Giants … who won three titles in their span.
Out of the 18 WS winners taking it for at least the third time in five years, San Francisco has the worst 5-year record, by far, and is one of two under .600 for the span. The bottom three:
- 2014 Giants — .538 for 2010-14 … 87-75 equivalent
- 1974 Athletics — .582 for 1970-74 … 94-68
- 1962 Yankees — .602 for 1958-62 … 97-65
The average of these 18 teams is .621 (101-61), or 14 more wins per year than these Giants. Out of 59 discrete team-seasons in these spans, the Giants own the worst and the 4th-worst, including the only losing season — they went 76-86 last year. But why dwell on the past? (There are only 59 relevant team-seasons because of overlapping spans, mostly the Yankees, who comprise 12 of the 18 “third-timers.”)
For 2010-14 combined, San Francisco ranks 7th in winning percentage, a total of 20 games behind the #1 Yankees. Of the other 17 “three-out-of-five” champs, only three did not have the best overall record in their spans: The A’s were 3rd for 1970-74 (a total of 12 games behind Baltimore); and the Yanks were 2nd to Atlanta for both 1995-99 and 1996-2000 (17 GB and 13.5 GB, respectively). Besides SF, the others averaged about 12 games ahead of the field over their 5-year span.
Of course, divisional play and wild cards make it easier to win the Series without a great record. And none of this is meant to chip at their epic achievement. (Said the Tigers fan, still tasting sawdust and sour grapes.) Still, the three other teams in the divisional era to win a third WS in five years averaged 10 more wins per year than the Giants, for their respective spans, and the two that did it in the wild-card era averaged 11 more wins (1999-2000 Yankees).
The six teams above SF in 2010-14 win percentage went a combined 83-92 in the postseason (equivalent to a 77-85 season), and even the three that did reach the Series — STL, TEX and DET combined for five pennants — went 66-63 in the postseason (like an 83-79 year). The Giants’ postseasons add up to 34-14 (akin to 115-47).
By Pythagorean W%, the Giants rank 13th for 2010-14. Five higher teams have failed to get past even one playoff foe, in a total of 12 chances: Oakland, Atlanta, Cincinnati (all 0-3), Washington (0-2) and the Angels (0-1). (The Tigers fan feels better.)
_____
Surging Down the Stretch
The Giants won their division in two of these three championship seasons, but never led at the All-Star Break. For the three years combined, they played like an 88-win team in the first half, but a 96-win team in the second half, and a 100-win team from Sept. 1 through end of regular season. Adding the postseason, their second-half W% looks like a 100-win season, and their Sept. 1 through WS mark looks like a 106-win season.
The 2014 Giants didn’t play so well down the stretch: 35-31 second half, 13-12 in September, and 4-6 in their last 10 games. But the mediocre chase pack never really put on any pressure. The second half began with San Fran one game clear of the nearest playoff have-not; that lead grew to 3 games by the end of August, and 5 games with ten left to play, as Milwaukee, Atlanta and Cincinnati all collapsed.
That’s not to say they had no incentive to play well in September. Indeed, they might have caught the Dodgers for the division crown, closing within a game on Sept. 12 when Bumgarner blanked them in a series opener, but dropping four of the last five in that head-to-head. But whatever the division title might have meant emotionally, the measurable benefits — such as, potential home-field edge for a series, or at least the Wild Card Game — are more hazy:
- In 2010 and ’12, the Giants went 12-4 in postseason road games, clinching five of their six series out of town.
- From 1995-2013, home teams before the World Series were a modest 278-245 (.532), including 1-3 in the Wild-Card Game.
- From 1995-2013, wild cards had a better postseason record than division winners: WCs 162-159, DWs 459-462. (Not including the Wild-Card Game, which by definition produces a .500 record for WCs.)
- Wild cards had split eight World Series against division winners.
How did these factors play in 2014? San Francisco went 6-3 on the road, winning the first game of all four rounds. Their Series foe was another wild card, which swept through its playoffs. Meanwhile, division winners went 6-9 at home, 0-4 against the wild cards.
_____
The Real “Pace of Play” Problem
The second wild card was introduced in 2012, to raise the stakes of division races. But those division winners are 69-77 in postseason play. That doesn’t mean the format’s faulty; every team wants home-field edge, and to avoid the play-in game. It just shows how different the postseason is from the 162-game grind.
Proposals have been floated to increase the penalty on wild-card teams, such as, no home games in the LDS. But the simplest and most logical way to reward regular-season excellence is to tighten the postseason schedule.
Thanks to copious off days (and his own heroic turn on two days’ rest), Madison Bumgarner logged 33% of San Francisco’s innings — or 35%, if you just count regulation frames. He started six of their 17 games, racking up nearly as many innings just in starts as their other three SPs combined (47.2-48.1). And except for the finale, each of his outings came with four days’ rest. Bumgarner punched the Giants’ ticket to the Series one day after Kansas City finished off their LCS, yet baseball went dark for four days, and he was fully rested for Game 1.
(A random aside: Bumgarner’s 5-inning save in Game 7 was just one out shorter than the average start in this postseason by all those not named Bumgarner.)
The schedule worked as well for the Royals, from a different angle. Kelvin Herrera relieved 11 times in 15 games — his 15 relief innings was topped by just two pitchers in the last 30 postseasons — but only twice pitched on consecutive days, thanks to the schedule. Herrera, Wade Davis and Greg Holland combined for 29% of Kansas City’s innings, more than twice their season share. They notched 34 appearances with just eight back-to-backs, which was lower than their season share (56 of 204). The extra work share without changing their work schedule helped that trio compile a 1.12 ERA, compared to 4.47 for all other KC pitchers.
It’s too much to expect MLB to float the postseason schedule, e.g., to move up the World Series when both LCS end early, as happened this year. But a big step towards making the postseason more like what teams go through to get there would be eliminating all scheduled off days between series, and cutting in-series travel days from two to one.
The second travel day is most impactful (and unnecessary) in the LDS, now played 2-2-1. With a scheduled day off before the next round, an LDS settled by game 4 (as almost three-fourths have been) means at least three days off before the LCS. That tends to benefit the wild cards and weaker division winners: They can reset their rotation, and start the next round on virtually equal footing with the teams that earned their way to a well-set rotation by winning their divisions more easily (and avoiding the wild-card game).
Even if all their series had gone the limit, the Royals would have played just 20 games in 30 days. During the season, they played 162 games in 182 days, or 26.7 games per 30 days. So in a month of postseason play, an extra week off was built into their schedule. That’s one sure way to water down the wild-card penalty.
The scheduled days off between series have logistical value to the people that stage the events. But couldn’t most of those things proceed on a contingency basis? Teams sell and print playoff tickets before they clinch a berth, and merchandisers crank out hats and shirts for titles that may never come. What’s the extra cost of preparing media credentials, etc., for a series your team might not get to? More precisely, what’s the cost of one day’s less lead time for those things? — since many times, if not most, the off day between series follows one or more days off from clinching early. The cost of such contingent outlays seems minuscule next to the record profits MLB has seen these last few years. Wouldn’t it be worth the cost, if it helps produce more champions who were among the truly best teams over the long season?
But here’s the rub: No one within the industry has both a vested interest in more “realistic” outcomes, and the clout to change the status quo.
_____
Best of Seven, Since 1985
Thinking of cutting travel days in series got me pondering the 2-3-2 format. Here’s the home team’s record for 2-3-2 series since 1985 (when the LCS went to best-of-seven), by game number:
- Game 1 — 48-39
- Game 2 — 50-37
- Game 3 — 50-37
- Game 4 — 42-45
- Game 5 — 42-30
- Game 6 — 31-21
- Game 7 — 18-6
By home-game grouping:
- Games 1-2 — .563 (98-76)
- Games 3-5 — .545 (134-112)
- Games 6-7 — .645 (49-27)
And summing up the teams’ home sets:
- Games 1,2,6,7 — .588 (147-103)
- Games 3,4,5 — .545 (134-112)
You might think the big edge for “1,2,6,7” merely reflects better teams having earned home-field advantage, by a better season record. But that’s a very minor factor. Remember, World Series home edge has not been tied to season record in this period. And a few LCS have given home field to a division winner with a worse record than a wild card. On average for these 87 series, the team with home advantage had a season edge of just .011 in W%, or less than two wins per season.
Contrasting LCS and WS for this period, the LCS home-field advantage is far more likely to reflect a better season record. Yet the home results have been far better in the World Series:
- LCS — .548 (183-151)
- WS — .605 (98-64)
- Total — .567 (281-215)
For the teams that get to play all three of 3-4-5 at home, we tend to assume a 2-1 record, don’t we? But those teams are much closer to .500 than to .667, coming in at .546 (118-98). A breakdown of those 72 three-game sets shows that 2-1 is barely more frequent than 1-2, and 3-0 just twice as likely as 0-3:
- 3-0 — 11 teams out of 72
- 2-1 — 29 teams
- 1-2 — 27 teams
- 0-3 — 5 teams
And while the home team W% is .567 for all games in these 87 series, the team with home-field edge is 52-35 in series, or .598.
This stuff will fry your brain if you’re not careful. For instance: Home teams went 17-13 this year after the wild-card games. But the teams with home-field edge went 1-6 in series. How’s that work? Well, the teams without home-field edge went 11-3 in their home games, while those with the edge went 6-10. Go figure.
Rambling on….
Games pitting teams with different season records were basically a coin flip: The better record went just 239-238. For all game winners, the average season edge was .001 — another way of saying “toss-up.” This randomness was concentrated in the World Series, where the better record went 73-83, and the average game winner’s season “edge” was -.002.
All home winners and losers for each game number had an average season W% margin between +/- .010 and .013, with two exceptions:
- Game 5 home losers were at -0.017 (about -3 wins for a year); and
- Game 7 home losers were at +.028 (about 4.5 wins).
(There were just six Game 7 home losers in this study, and this margin mainly comes from two upsets:
— 1985 ALCS, the 99-62 Blue Jays fell to the 91-71 Royals; and
— 2006 NLCS, the 97-65 Mets fell to the 83-78 Cardinals.)
Ah, yes … a reminder of my other favorite team’s failure. That seems a fitting place and mood to end my first post of the dreaded off-season. Don’t forget to turn your clocks back! (I’m setting mine to April.)
I’ll take 3 in 5 years all day long and twice on Sunday!
The bigger, better, most asked question remains…Are they a Dynasty?
Do we penalize the Giants for not making the playoffs in 2011 and 2013? Do es that even matter when you win 3 of 5 years? Do we consider the Atlanta Braves 1991-2006 run a dynasty because they won 14 straight divisions or are they not a dynasty because they only won one World Series?
I’d love to hear some good logic and reasoning for everyone who follows up on this, after all, it’s only opinions.
As A Giants fan I do believe it IS a dynasty. Look at any franchise who’s won 3 of 5 years, are they considered one or not?
Here’s why I wouldn’t consider the Giants a dynasty. I see very little player continuity between the 2010 and 2014 teams.
For position players, I only see Posey and Sandoval. And while Sandoval contributed during the 2010 regular season, he was benched during the playoffs and barely played. Oh and Ishikawa. Except he played for Milwaukee in 2012. And had a grand total of 0.4 WAR for the Giants in 2010 and 2014.
Starters…Cain, Bumgarner and Lincecum. Except Cain pitched poorly this year, got hurt and wasn’t around for the playoffs. And Lincecum had negative WAR this season and only pitched once in the postseason.
Relievers…that’s actually where the Giants have had the most continuity with Affeldt, Casilla, Lopez, and Romo. Of course 2010 closer Brian Wilson is long gone.
Obivously Bochy has managed all three teams.
So I don’t see it. For me to consider a team a dynasty, I need more continuity.
But I don’t think that is very different for any team if you look at them a few years apart. If we were to look at the Yankees of 1996 and 2000, with some notes about 1998:
Position players: Tino, Jeter, Bernie, O’Neill; Jorge Posada played 8 games in 1996; Leyritz 24 games in 2000, and spent 1998 with Boston and San Diego
SPs: Pettitte and Cone; Cone had negative WAR in 2000 (worst on the Yankees staff); Gooden started 5 games in 2000, but was on Cleveland in 1998 and pitched for Houston and Tampa earlier in 2000
RPs: Rivera and Nelson; Ramiro Mendoza was a swingman, with negative WAR in 1996; their 1996 closer (and WS MVP that year) was long gone by 2000
The Yankees had a little more continuity in position players, but less in the pitching staff. They still had a lot of turnover between 1996 and 2000, despite being much more successful in their version of 2011 and 2013 (made the playoffs in 1997, won the WS in 1999). And this team is one that people would certainly label a dynasty.
But then what’s your threshold Artie Z? If a team had 100% turnover would you still consider that a dynasty? What if there was only one player in common? Or two?
For comparison purposes consider the 1949-1953 Yankees. Five consecutive WS wins with 12 players playing all 5 years and 2 others with 4 years. They had the most wins in the ML for three of those years and the most for the 5 years combined. They also had the greatest differential between RS vs. RA. That constitutes a dynasty.
Richard, that’s good info on the 1949-53 Yankees. A counterpoint is that their lineup was less stable on a day-to-day basis than most teams, thanks to Casey’s platooning penchant.
In those 5 years, only Yogi and Scooter totaled 2,500 PAs for the Yankees. Five of the other 15 teams had at least three such guys (Dodgers 6, Phillies 4), and two more clubs had as many.
Even dropping the threshold to 2,000 PAs in the span, the Yanks had four such, while four teams had more — including a remarkable seven for the Dodgers.
Obviously, I’m not denying their dynasty status. I’m just saying, a consistent standard is hard to come by, other than “I know it when I see it.”
The SF pitching staff has been remarkably stable:
— The seven pitchers you noted as being there in all five seasons have amassed 53% of the team’s innings in that span.
— The three starters are among 14 who’ve logged 900 IP for a team in 2010-14. Detroit also has three, and eight teams have one apiece. (And Detroit has little continuity in the bullpen — stating the obvious — with only Phil Coke there all five years, and no truly valuable guy there even four years.)
I can’t quickly compare this to other dynasties. But it’s obviously quite unusual in today’s game. Even dropping the threshold to 700 IP for a team in 2010-14 brings in just three more clubs with more than one. Thirteen clubs have only one pitcher with 700 IP in 2010-14, and twelve have none at all.
Yes, Lincecum has stunk the last three years — but he’s remained a rotation fixture, averaging 30 starts. And he leads them in total innings for the period. I’m inclined to count playing time as well as production when gauging continuity.
The lineup has been less stable. But their best player, Posey, has been a star in all three title years. The Panda, their most iconic, has been a regular all five years, even if he was benched in October ’10. Crawford and Pence were fixtures for the last three years (two titles).
We’ll never all agree on a standard of continuity. But the Giants meet my threshold for dynasty.
With Atlanta, we certainly ignore that they were six games behind Montréal in the NL East when the season ended without division titles being awarded. So their 14 straight division titles is reduced to a string of 11 first-place finishes one year removed from a string of 3 first-place finishes (which is still impressive, but not quite as impressive as they make it seem). They would have become the first NL Wild Card.
Considering the Braves overcame a 9.5-game deficit in early August to catch the Giants for the NL West crown a year earlier, yes, I think it’s fair to ignore who was leading the NL East at approximately the same time in ’94.
Hey, that phantom division title in 1994 is all we Expo fans have.
And I’m still trying to figure out how to add an avatar to my profile, like Hartvig and birtelcom have.
Avatars? That’s really us.
Sign up to http://www.gravatar.com using the same email address that you use here. Upload your avatar onto that site and you’ll be good to go.
One thing that has always mystified me about the current Giants team is how incredibly successful they are almost in spite of themselves.
On the 2010 team the 3 highest paid players- Barry Zito, Aaron Rowand and Edgar Renteria (who together accounted for almost 43% of the teams entire payroll)- managed to produce a total of 2.5 WAR between them.
In 2012 their 1st, 2nd and 4th highest paid players- Zito plus Tim Lincecum and Aubrey Huff (who accounted for over 42% of the teams payroll)- managed a slightly-less-than-stellar 0.2 WAR total between the 3 of them.
In 2014 it was their 1st, 2nd and 5th highest paid players -Lincecum plus Matt Cain and Tim Hudson (who actually were paid more than any of the previous trios but who only accounted for one-third of the teams total because payroll had increased so much) put up 0.9 WAR total.
I find it amazing that a team could allocate so much of it’s resources to so little effect and yet remain successful over what is in baseball terms a fairly extended period of time.
Take Posey’s WAR out of the Giants’ regular season win total and they miss the post-season in 2010 and are highly questionable for making the post-season in 2012 and 2014. Posey’s career WAR total through age 27 is just ahead of Berra and Piazza, and just below Munson and Cochrane, through their respective age 27 seasons.
Of the 295 pitchers who have appeared in the post-season 2010-2015, the top 8 overall Win Probability Added numbers over those five post-seasons:
Bumgarner 2.3
Verlander 1.9
Affeldt, Fister and Brian Wilson 1.6
Lincecum 1.4
Wade Davis 1.3
Cain 1.1
A powerful formula: Get yourself a Hall of Fame quality catcher and a continuing sequence of powerful young starters any one of whom might emerge to dominate a post-season series.
Your suggested tweaks to the post-season schedule, John, I take to be attempts to apply the philosophy that the post-season should be more like the regular season than it is now, that is, the post-season should call on more of the same team-wide talent depth that the regular season demands. There is something to be said for that approach, but it is not self-evident. Maybe the post-season should be a separate and different sort of test?
birtelcom, thanks for bringing up the postseason schedule.
You’re right, it’s not self-evident that the postseason “should” be as much like the regular season as possible. But I would say, generally, the burden of proof should be on those who would make it different.
More to your point … Even under my plan, the postseason schedule would be less taxing than the regular season.
The absolute maximum for a wild card would be 20 games in 23 days, a rate of 26 games per 30 days. The regular season is almost 27 games per 30 days.
Max for a team avoiding the wild card would be 19 games in 22 days. But no team has yet played 19 games in a postseason. Only two teams have played 18; doing that in 22 days would still mean two extra days off compared to the regular season.
So, the postseason would still be a “different sort of test” under my plan. The question is, how much different would we like it to be?
The current schedule changes the sort of test in two major ways: Pitchers can take a far greater share of workload than they did in the season, and regular players get far more rest.
Consider that Posey and Perez started every game at catcher — 17 and 15, respectively — and caught every inning but two (Susac finished the 10-0 loss). Posey has never started 120 games in a year behind the plate — this year he started 2/3 of the games there — but he’s started 46 of 48 postseason games with the gear on, a season rate of 155 starts.
The Royals used the same lineup almost every game — the only variation was Dyson starting 3 WS games in place of Aoki. They did have a stable lineup during the season, but still, only Escobar and Gordon started 90% of team games at a fielding position.
The Giants got only 30% of their total innings from non-#1 starters. During the year, that share was 52%. The Royals got 44% of postseason innings from relievers, up from 32% during the season.
The season equivalent to Bumgarner’s postseason share would be 478 innings, or 101 IP more than the live-ball record. Even counting only his starts — all on full rest — the equivalent season share would be 432 IP, or 55 more than the live-ball record.
Many aces have logged a disproportionate share of their team’s postseason innings, like Schilling in 2001, but they had to work on short rest. That still makes the postseason a different sort of test, and I’m fine with that. But Bumgarner was able to reach a 30% share solely on full-rested starts — and 32% of their innings in regulation. That just seems “different” — not much of a “test.” (And for all that we laud MadBum’s save in the finale, the Giants did lead before he entered — so, for all we know, they would have won the title without those heroics.)
With regards to position players, you’re always going to see the best lineups used in the playoffs regardless of schedule. Posey’s postseason playing time may be disproportionately high in comparison to his regular season time, but I’d wager that’s less to do with available offdays and more because it’s *the playoffs*. However you rejig the schedule, there will always be enough offdays to justify throwing your best team out there for every game.
RJ, you’re right that playoff teams will start their best, regardless of rest. But a catcher who starts 15 straight games in the regular season will feel it.
Posey has done that just once in the regular season (and I didn’t let doubleheaders end his streaks). That was the end of his rookie year, 2010, when the Giants were fighting for the division crown that they clinched head-to-head on the last day. Posey caught the last 20 games (over 23 days), and batted .210, after hitting .325 before that. In the last six games of that run, games 15-20, he hit .125 (3-24).
But in this postseason, the schedule offered a maximum 20 games over 29 days — a typical workload for a #1 catcher. If the schedule was shrunk to 23 days, Posey might still start every game, but he wouldn’t be nearly as fresh.
I’m not so sure they did themselves any favors asking him to catch so many innings this post season as it was. I wouldn’t call him fresh. The Posey of the 2014 post season was far from what we’ve come to expect with the bat, defensive leadership aside.
JA, you realize this would heave to playoff double headers from bad weather?
mosc … good catch on the rainouts. Revealing once more the hazards of unedited blogging.
So, maybe we need a scheduled day between series. But if nothing else, we could cut *at least* one travel day from the middle of each series.
Out of curiosity … This year’s schedule had one off day between each scheduled LCS Game 7 and WS Game 1. What would they have done if LCS Game 6 was rained out two days in a row? I assume they would have pushed back the WS, rather than play a LCS doubleheader.
Playoff double headers are definitely not in the rulebook. There are special roster rules for double headers and other restrictions that wouldn’t be simple to transfer to the post season. I think MLB would play into december if they had to before they’d take a post season double header.
A look at Yankees personnel from 1995-99 (that is, looking backward from their 3rd title in a 5-year span):
Lineup Regulars:
C — Stanley, Girardi, Girardi, Posada, Posada
1B — Donnie, Tino x 4
2B — Kelly, Duncan, Sojo,* Knoblauch, Knoblauch
SS — Fernandez, Jeter x 4
3B — Boggs, Boggs, Hayes, Brosius, Brosius
LF — Polonia,* G.Williams,* Raines, Curtis, Ledee*
CF — Bernie x 5
RF — Paulie x 5
* No position regular with 300 PAs for the year.
But how to gauge that? It strikes me as only medium stable: On a scale of 8 to 40 different regulars at those eight positions, they come in with 21 different guys. Four were regulars in all three title years, but no one else was a regular in more than two of the five years.
Rotation — years with 20+ starts in 1995-99:
— 5 for Pettitte,
— 3 for Cone
— 2 each for Irabu(!), El Duque, Wells and Rogers
— 1 each for Clemens, Key, Gooden, McDowell and Hitchcock
Only Pettitte reached 800 IP for NYY in the span, and Cone was the other with 500+.
Bullpen — years with 40+ relief outings:
— 4 for Mo
— 3 for Nelson and Stanton
— 2 each for Wetteland, Wickman, Lloyd
— 1 each for three others
Total relief games 1995-99:
— 256, Mo (there all five years)
— 234, Nelson (four years, all three titles)
— 203, Stanton (three years, two titles)
— 122, Wetteland (two years, one title)
— 120, Wickman (two years, one title)
— 109, Lloyd (three years, two titles)
Over all, this roster doesn’t seem much more stable than the 2010-14 Giants. The lineup was more stable, the rotation far less so, and the bullpen somewhat less so.
True, we might find more stability in the Yanks from 1996-2000 — but so might we if the Giants win another title in the next two years.
Through 1923, all crosstown series were played alternating home field every game 1-1-1-1-1-1-1. Starting in 1936, they went 2-3-2.
The last three crosstown series were 2000 (NYM-NYY), 1989 (OAK-SF), and 1956 (NYY-BKN).
“But here’s the rub: No one within the industry has both a vested interest in more “realistic” outcomes, and the clout to change the status quo.”
I’m not sure this is true. Removing off days increases the momentum of your playoffs and doesn’t give our distracted public time to pay attention to college/pro football quite so easily. I think there’d be a minor, but mathematically significant, increase in viewership if the off-days were removed.
This could be an incorrect theory, but how would MLB know if they don’t try? Perhaps there’s no vested interest in the “best team” winning, but there just might be some extra $$$ in removing the extraneous rest days. And everyone wants to make more money.
I think far and away the main impact is on the starting pitching. You are going to see more post season innings spread between starters and a greater injury fallout from a frontline starter going down because their replacement will be further down the depth chart.
brp@17: I’m skeptical about your theory that ratings-related dollars would increase with fewer off-days. I get the sense that the post-season schedules are carefully crafted to have the games played on days and at times that the networks believe will maximize the most advertising dollars, skipping those days and times where there is less revenue available because either viewing is lower or the competition for viewers is fiercer. I doubt the careful strategy worked out by the advertising revenue experts could be offset by a very speculative bump in viewing resulting from a more compressed playing schedule.
Dynasty? No way. A team needs to be dominant in the regular season, as well as have success in the post-season. Two 1sts, two seconds, a 3rd place and an average of 89 wins from 2010 to 2014 are just not that impressive.
I’d see these 2010-2014 Giants are closer to the Twins of 1987-1991 than the Yankees of 1936-39 (a true dynasty); they’re a good team with surprising success in the postseason, not a great team.
Lawrence, would you elaborate on your view of what makes a dynasty?
Referencing the 1936-39 Yankees doesn’t seem too helpful, since they’re obviously a contender for greatest team of all time. I’m interested in your take on these teams:
— 1972-74 Athletics: Three straight titles, but never had MLB’s best record, and just once had AL’s best record. Third in total wins for the period.
— 1906-08 Cubs: Two titles, three pennants, best record each year (incl. all-time best, and probably the best 3-year run ever, with a .703 pct.), best overall record by 42 games over #2.
— 1929-31 Athletics: Two titles, three pennants, best record each year (avg. 104-48 — one of the best 3-year runs ever), best overall record by 43 games over #2.
— 1976-78 Yankees: Two titles, three pennants, best record just once, best overall record by 5 games.
— 1969-71 Orioles: One title, three pennants, but best record each year (avg. 106 wins), best overall record by 45 games.
— 1988-90 Athletics: One title, three pennants, best record each year (avg. 102 wins), and the best overall record by 27 games.
— 1901-03 Pirates: One title, three pennants (no WS the first two years), best record twice, best overall record by 37 games.
What I’m driving at is: Where do you strike the balance between championships and regular-season wins?
Also, are the 1987-91 Twins really a good comp for these Giants? They had a worse W% for the 5-year period, with two losing years, and no other playoffs besides the two titles. And I think SF’s third title in the middle of the 5-year span is a big edge.
There’s something to be said for extra days-off that allow for the best players to play more. Even though at heart I’m the kind of person who is inclined to do away with all the playoff rounds and just have the best two regular season record teams in the World Series, I kind of like not having to see those number five starters in there.
The core that wasn’t:
New York Yankees sure get a lot of venom thrown their way. One of the most common spoken on here is that their farm system doesn’t produce any talent they have to BUY it. Take a look at the following yankee farm hands on this list, noting their current age going into 2015:
Robinson Cano (32) – 51.5 WAR
Brett Gardner (31) – 23.2 WAR
Melky Cabrera (30) – 17.2 WAR
David Robertson (30) – 10.8 WAR
Phil Hughes (29) – 10.6 WAR
average age 30 – 113.3 WAR total
There’s also 32 year old Alfredo Aceves, 30 year old Ian Kennedy, 29 year old Joba Camberlain and Francisco Cervelli, and Ramiro Peña. That’s a big collection of guys (11 of em) who played in the majors in 2014 all born between about a 4 year period, all who made their debut with the Yankees. If you think about a 25 man roster only containing 13 position players, that’s practically a full team and we’re only talking about a few year span. Throwing in some older and younger guys who debut’d for the yankees over the years you’d find more than your average team.
The “Core 5” as it was (Cano, Gardner, Cabrera, Robertson, Hughes), compared to their more famous counterparts 14 years earlier before the start of the 2001 season:
Bernie Williams (32) – 39.7 WAR
Mariano Rivera (31) – 17.7 WAR
Joge Posada (29) – 9.8 WAR
Andy Pettitte (29) – 25.3 WAR
Derek Jeter (27) – 28.0 WAR
average age 30 – 120.5 WAR total
That’s not just a core, that’s an historic force anchoring a dynasty and I have to say the modern guys square up pretty well. The modern guys have some additional young pitching in their dynasty of Ian Kennedy, Ivan Nova, Joba Chamberlin, and Alfredo Aceves where the old guys have Ramiro Mendoza and not much else. Now clearly over the early part of the 2000s the 5 guys listed above wracked up even more value though no rings until the 5 guys listed above all debut’d. You can’t expect the modern guys to have that kind of career in their 30s but the yankees farm system produced some premier talent.
You can’t expect your farm system to deliver a guy who will have double digit career WAR totals every year, though the yankees have pretty much done it for roughly the past 15. I don’t think the top guys are hall of famers (save Cano) but they’re key contributors and all 2009 World Champions.
I also think there’s another potential wave coming in when you look at the yankees top prospect list. It’s usually a cast of characters but there’s a real chance the yankees have 5 top-100 ranked prospects in the 2015 minors between the ages of 21 and 24 next season (Severino, Judge, Refsnyder, Bird, Sanchez). The 14-year wave is swelling again so don’t be so down on the yankees farm. It’s among the best of the modern era.
I don’t think that’s the criticism of the Yankees, Mosc. Just look at the last WS winner. I count 30+ WAR coming from high priced free agents (Matsui, CC, Burnett, Tex, Arod, Damon, and Pettitte). Lots of teams wouldn’t have been able to sign more than one or two of those players. The Yankees has all 7.
Without them, they’re a 73 win team. Now obviously they would have had someone in those roster spots, so maybe they’re an 80-90 win team without those 7.
That’s a LOT of bought talent. Sure they got value from their minor league system as well. So what? All teams get some value from their minor leagues. But the Yankees are one of the few teams that can plug hole after hole after hole with high priced free agents. Though that strategy has backfired the past two years and time will tell if the Yankees can properly adjust.
mosc, I’m not seeing your point here. I just ran the top 200 in active WAR among position players. Three began with the Yankees:
— Cano, #9, 51.5 WAR
— Gardner, #70, 23.2 WAR
— Melky, #103, 17.2 WAR
For pitchers, the “active” leader who debuted with the Yanks is Chien-Ming Wang, who ranks about #70, and I suppose might add to his 12.6 WAR.
There are 30 teams. The Yankees produced one player among the top 60 active position players, and none of the top 60 pitchers. That seems pretty poor.
While I’m certainly not offended by the recent Giant regular season «mediocrity», I am somewhat a fan of the town, team, and most of all, the huge venue they call home. I’ve seen enough cheap home runs in Philly to make me appreciate gap triples and outfielders that have to be fleet afoot. That being said, the rules now and the schedule now, made it all possible for these Giants. Those things are unlikely to change.
As a kid I recall Lonborg losing a Game 7 on 1 days rest to Gibson pitching on 2 days rest. Gibson failed in a Game 7 the following year in similar circumstances. That isn’t going to happen again either.
If we had just 4 teams total make the playoffs (1969-1993) and they played a 9 game LCS and an 11 game WS,, I would actually prefer that as long as there was limited travel and fewer days off. That would mimic the regular season more and necessitate the use of 4th starters
Gibson was pitching with 3 days rest in 1968. Lolich actually was the one pitching on short rest in that Game 7.
@34;
We’ll never have _less_ playoff teams in any of the four major team sports, and we’ll never ever EVER go back to 8 playoff teams in MLB, let alone four. Just accept that.
I still think the 5-of-15 teams making the playoffs in each league in MLB is a reasonable system, especially now with the ‘sudden-death’ one game playoff between the wild-card winners. MLB has quite a ways to go till they diminish the accomplishment of qualifying for the playoffs as much as the NBA (see the 1981 NBA finals).