The Hardball Times Live http://www.hardballtimes.com/main en pedicina@bc.edu Copyright 2009 2009-11-07T18:04:01+00:00 2010 impact rookies: Carlos Carrasco http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/2010-impact-rookies-carlos-carrasco/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/2010-impact-rookies-carlos-carrasco/#When:17:04:01Z Carlos Carrasco. Carrasco came over to Cleveland from Philadelphia as part of the Cliff Lee trade this past season. The 22-year old Venezuelan native entered the 2009 season as one of the top pitching prospects in the minors. He has a solid 6'3 215-pound frame He projects as a second or third starter starter with a low to mid 90s fastball, an average curve ball and a plus sinking change-up. His change is by far his best pitch and he will use it regularly in any count or situation

Carrasco spent part of 2008 and all of 2009 in Triple-A. In those 32 starts he has averaged 9.07 strikeouts per nine innings. His command has also been improving over that time with 2.71 walks per nine. He was much less dominant in his parts of two seasons in Double-A in 2007 and 2008. He had a combined strikeout to walk rate of 1.74 and a less than impressive 4.69 FIP.

He made five starts in September with Cleveland and had little success. In 22.1 innings he walked 11 and struck out 11 while allowing 40 hits and six home runs. While these results are certainly not encouraging the Indians will likely not be too worried about his brief stint in the major leagues.

His mechanics have been inconsistent at times which has led to periods of struggle. His inconsistency can be frustrating at times, but those flashes of brilliance show the potential he possesses. Carrasco is still young and could use some more developmental time in Triple-A but you can expect to see him with Cleveland by mid-season.

286+306-316/185

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Alex Pedicini 2009-11-07T17:04:01+00:00 Ranking Yankee World Champions http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/ranking-yankee-world-champions/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/ranking-yankee-world-champions/#When:21:24:55Z all the cool kids are ranking Yankee title winners, so I thought I would, too. Since it's being done by others, there's no sense in making it a full article, so I'll just dump it in THT Live.

I use league strength as a secondary factor, which is arguably the least honest way of looking at it overall. It's more important than I'm letting on, but I'm mostly interested in how teams dominated their actual opponents. When it's similar, which is frequent, I'll look at league strength to some extent.

Some will disagree, but it's just a fun exercise anyway.

Actual record, with pythag wins in (). Here are my rankings, based on 10 minutes worth of thought:

1. 1998 114-48 (108). If you account for league strength at all, they have to be #1

2. 1927 110-44 (109). A then-league record in wins and a pythag record nearly as good? DANG!

3. 1939 106-56 (111). I know they're pythag is better, but real wins matter, too.

4. 1932 107-47 (99). Might belong lower, but the real key is that there's three teams way above everyone else.

5. 1953 99-52 (101). Not only Stengel's winningest champion, but did so despite being his only one in the five-peat to play less than 154 games.

6. 1937 102-52 (103). Those McCarthy teams were just good.

7. 1936 102-51 (102). I really can't tell the difference between 1937 and 1936.

8. 1961 109-53 (103). A one-dimensional team not nearly as good as their record. But did'ya notice their record?

9. 2009 103-59 (95). Random fact: only six Yankee teams have ever won more than 103 games in a season (and one was the 1964 squad that lost the World Series.

10. 1977 100-62 (99). The team that made Reggie a candy bar.

11. 1978 100-63 (99). The 1977-78 Yanks sure were consistent.

12. 1999 98-64 (96). Not nearly as good as the team the year before, but still damn good.

13. 1941 101-53 (96). The might belong a bit lower, but it had one of the most famous Yankee feats: DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak.

14. 1947 97-57 (100). From 1923 until the mid-1960s, the Yanks never went longer than three full seasons without a world championship. This ended one of those painfully long droughts.

15. 1956 97-57 (98). Mickey Mantle won a triple crown that year, not that anyone thinks of that when they see this team. They're famous for Don Larsen's perfecto.

16. 1950 98-56 (96). Stengel's teams really don't rank that high overall, which might seem odd at first, but makes sense if you think about it. He didn't have better talent than any of the other managers, he just had the knack or good fortune to produce titles from teams anyway.

17. 1951 98-56 (94). The first four years of the five-peat under Stengel produced teams that were all about the same as each other . They won 95-98 games every year, with 94-96 pythag wins each season. Good luck separating that bunch!

18. 1949 97-57 (95). See what I mean?

19. 1952 95-59 (95). They had the fewest wins of any Stengel champion.

20. 1938 99-53 (97). This might be better than the Stengel five-peat, but I felt obligated to put those last four teams in one solid block because they feel similar, and I didn't want to put this squad above them all.

21. 1928 101-53 (95). Worst 100-game winning Yankee title winner ever. Man, what bums.

22. 1923 98-54 (95). The first Yankee world champs. While we always think of the Yanks as a heavy hitting team, aside from Ruth their offense was pretty pedestrian. (Yeah, I know that's a big thing to aside, but still - their offensive wasn't as good as you might guess).

23. 1996 92-70 (88). They're .568 winning percentage is the 62nd best in franchise history. In other words, it was a below average regular season for them. Jeebus.

24. 1962 96-66 (94). They struggled to win as many games as a Stengel-era team despite playing 8 more times. Lucky for them so many of the fast-integrating teams were in the NL.

25. 1943 98-56 (92). With WWII, they had "only" two Hall of Famers in the starting lineup: a 36-year-old Bill Dickey (who played half the season) and Joe Gordon.

26. 2000 87-74 (85). On the bright side, their pythag record was better than the 2006 Cardinal world champs. On the down side, that's the bright side.

27. 1958 97-62 (96). Here's a controversial pick, for which my explanation comes in a column I once wrote for THT. Short version: they were great early in the year, but then their pitching went kaput. They were an average team (in the lesser league) the next two months. The pitching problem wasn't a fluke - it remained an issue all of 1959, causing them to barely finish .500. They didn't improve until 1960, when a new crop of pitchers developed. At the time of the 1958 World Series, this was just plain and simple not a good team, in the inferior league. The other teams that won were at least good compared to their competition, but in October 1958 I'm not sure I can say that about these Yanks.

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Chris Jaffe 2009-11-06T21:24:55+00:00 Twins strike for J.J. Hardy http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/twins-strike-for-j.j.-hardy/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/twins-strike-for-j.j.-hardy/#When:19:52:40Z
Hardy, acquired by the Minnesota Twins in exchange for Carlos Gomez, leaves Milwaukee after five seasons. Debuting as a 22-year old, Hardy had quickly established himself as a top-tier shortstop in quick order until 2009 brought in a caving of his offensive numbers.

As soon as a year ago, the Hardy/Gomez swap would have been unthinkable: Hardy was coming off a .283/.343/.478 line with 24 home runs. Defensively, he was one of the strongest shortstops in the bigs, and the sky seemed the limit.

Cubs-Brewers
How quickly a year changes matters. Hardy struggled to a .659 OPS, earning himself a late-season demotion to Triple-A that robbed him of his ability to become a free agent after the 2010 season. What Hardy struggled with particularly was his contact rate, not all that surprising given his career batting average pre-2009 was .270.

You can call it karma or the regression to the mean, however, given the fact that Hardy was unlucky in 2009 and similarly lucky in 2008.

Take BABIP as compared to xBABIP (read more on the birthing and reasoning behind xBABIP here) over the years for Hardy. In Hardy's rookie season of 2005, both BABIP and xBABIP remained the same. From 2006-'07, Hardy's BABIP -- the actual result -- trended lower than his xBABIP -- the expected result. As far as BABIP was concerned, Hardy's 2006-7 was unlucky (but not terribly so).

In 2008, things changed. Hardy's xBABIP actually dropped to .279 from .286 after consistently rising -- a mark of a hitter improving. This .279 xBABIP from 2007 ended up being Hardy's BABIP in 2008 -- what Hardy was expected to perform at in 2008 mirrored his actual production in 2007. Put it yet another way. Hardy's .277/.323/.463 line from 2007, strictly from a BABIP/xBABIP perspective, should have been his 2008 line as opposed to the high-water mark he achieved. His 2007 should have been duplicated in 2008.

It wasn't. Why? Because while the 2008 xBABIP mirrored the 2007 BABIP, the 2008 BABIP rose to .305, or roughly a 20-point spike in BABIP. Not coincidentally, his batting average rose 20 points over this time span.

In 2009, Hardy got a rude awakening in BABIP, as it sank all the way down to .264, the lowest since 2006 when he had a .242 batting average. Any wonder, then, that his batting average was .229? When you're looking at a .283 average (what he maintained in 2008) and compare it to 2009's .229, it's an obvious dropoff. But when you look at how precipitously BABIP dropped off and compare it with like BABIPs from previous years, it's not that far a dropoff.

Ah, but would you believe Hardy was actually just as good in 2009 as in 2008? The final numbers may not bear it out, but his 2009 xBABIP ended up at .306... meaning that his 2008 final numbers from a BABIP perspective should have been repeated in 2009!

Instead of his statistics following a consistent 2007-9 progression, his last three years were dicated by luck. Here's the visual evidence below, using actual numbers to simplify matters and placing them where the BABIP/xBABIP correlations command:


































Year Actual Expected BABIP xBABIP
2007 .277/.323/.463 Slightly better than ‘07 0.279 0.286
2008 .283/.343/.478 .277/.323/.463 0.305 0.279
2009 .229/.302/.357 .283/.343/.478 0.264 0.306




It looks from this table that Hardy's actually been rather consistent over the last three years: luck has simply gotten in his way (in both directions). Given these numbers, it comes across as if Hardy's true offensive talent lies around his 2007 totals -- at least, looking at the last three years. Entering his age 27 year, he could be primed for another leap forward as he did so from 2005-6. At the very least, however, his poor 2009 shouldn't give anyone any pause at all in evaluating what he can bring to the table. Expecting a line similar to 2007 is the way to go.

For Minnesota, that's a tremendous value coupled with his defense: the Twins will boast one of the top shortstops in the league and have him under control through his age 28 year.

All they had to give up was centerfielder Carlos Gomez, the centerpiece of the Johan Santana swap. Gomez has been a poor hitter, but is still just 23 with plenty of possible fruitful years ahead of him. The cachet here that the Brewers liked was his defense, which should help the Brewers and their flyball pitching staff. A leap forward offensively may be a long shot to ask for, but perhaps Doug Melvin is hopeful Gomez can experience a Michael Bourn-type breakout.

At first, I was incredulous over this deal, believing Hardy should have been shopped for a pitcher. While I still feel the Twins come ahead in the deal, I've come to realize that shipping Hardy out for a bat is actually rather logical. It's far easier to get a position player in a deal than a pitcher, especially ones of like talent. Even if Gomez is the equivalent of a 5.00 ERA pitcher, the latter comes with a higher price tag. Heck, look at the salaries the Brew Crew paid/is paying Jeff Suppan and Braden Looper. By doing this deal, the Brewers have signaled that they will not bring Mike Cameron back. Milwaukee can use that saved money and go after a free agent pitcher, a situation that gives Milwaukee better control over what pitchers come to town and at what cost.

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Evan Brunell 2009-11-06T19:52:40+00:00 In the backwater swirling http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/in-the-backwater-swirling/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/in-the-backwater-swirling/#When:12:56:09Z
"There's an American League joke which has a gag line: 'Switch to the National League and add five years to your career.'"

Although it could describe modern baseball well enough, the quote is from May 1947. Apparently, there is something that will never change.

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Brandon Isleib 2009-11-06T12:56:09+00:00 Both sides come out ahead in Teahen swap http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/both-sides-come-out-ahead-in-teahen-swap/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/both-sides-come-out-ahead-in-teahen-swap/#When:18:41:28Z
This trade is certainly no blockbuster, but the trade appears to be very telling on how each general manager is approaching the offseason and construction of its roster.

MLB: Mariners vs Royals SEP 18
Chicago is receiving a player that has a shot to knock 20 home runs in The Cell with a batting average around .270. He's under control for two more arbitration years, and many seem to feel he's a lock to be the White Sox's new right-fielder with the departure of Jermaine Dye. I'm not so sure.

Gordon Beckham has long been viewed as a second baseman or shortstop, with his time at third base only due to extenuating circumstances. With the Teahen acquisition, the now-former Royal could slot in at third while Beckham assumes the vacant second base spot.

Another option that places Beckham at short is to move the Cuban Missile, Alexei Ramirez, back to second base of whence he came in 2008. All indications I've heard about the club's position on Ramirez leads me to believe they're committed to Alexei at short, leaving second as Beckham's only possible move if the ChiSox want Teahen at third. (Defense is irrelevant: according to UZR, Teahen is bad at both 3B and RF, so it's a pick your poison type deal.)

I also have a difficult time believing the White Sox would deal two infield pieces to receive someone they plan on stashing in the outfield. While it's true that the club has two outfield spots vacant, is opening up another vacant spot at second really the right idea, unless you have a contingency plan in place?

I think that this deal is valuable from Williams' perspective because it allows him to go in multiple directions. If Orlando Hudson falls in his lap (which I have a sneaking suspicion will happen), then you see Teahen as the club's right-fielder. If Johnny Damon and Rick Ankiel decide Chicago should be their new home, you slot Teahen in at third base.

Teahen represents a starting player for Chicago, one that keeps Williams flexible in acquiring future players. He won't have to shoehorn his focus on one particular position like he would have if he had acquired a true third-baseman or true right-fielder. For the trigger-happy GM, that's a dream come true.

On the Royals end, you're finally seeing GM Dayton Moore pick up potential high-reward payoffs. The acquisition of Fields reminds me a lot of the Pirates' deal for Jeff Clement at the trading deadline, which saw Jack Wilson headed to Seattle. Both boast home-run power but had passed the prospect stage and were merely frustrating their current franchises, so off they went.

I can't see Fields displacing Gordon at third, but I expect him to become Kansas City's full-time first baseman. There's really no way to predict how well Fields will fare, but it's the kind of move that struggling clubs should make instead of dealing for an overpaid first-baseman essentially is Josh Fields. (That would be Mike Jacobs.)

Getz is highly likely to win the starting second base job and gives the Royals another set of wheels to work with (25 stolen bases). While his overall line of .261/.324/.347 may not seem impressive, he suffered from a strained right oblique and sports hernia over his last two months of the season. Toss out those two months, and his final line becomes more impressive: .272/.327/.373. A .256 slugging percentage in May (which may have resulted from a fractured bone in his right middle finger) is what tempers his slugging percentage under .400. Of course, at this juncture, you're talking three good months and three bad months, of which the bad months may have been related to injury.

I think it's safe to say if Getz stays relatively healthy, he's good for a slugging percentage just under .400, 30 stolen bases and a .260-.270 batting average. If he can develop some plate discipline and add 10-20 points to his OBP total, he suddenly becomes a very good second baseman.

Getz's acquisition has the potential to pay off, but if it doesn't, it won't harm the club. It does seem to shove Alberto Callaspo out of a starting spot despite a very productive .300/.356/.457 campaign. To Moore's credit, he seems to realize that given Callaspo's history, it's likely his season was a fluke. Even if it's not, Callaspo will have no trouble playing his way into a starting spot somewhere.

In essense, this trade boils down to Moore taking a chance on Getz and Fields being productive. If not, they're really no worse off than they were: Teahen was only getting older, more expensive and wasn't a franchise piece to build around. The payoff of one or both of the new Royals succeeding will impact the Royals' far more than Teahen will.

From Chicago's end of things, it gives them a starting position player with the flexibility to play multiple positions, allowing Williams to continue upgrading his team where he chooses, not where he's forced to.

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Evan Brunell 2009-11-05T18:41:28+00:00 Liveblog World Series Game 6 http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/liveblog-world-series-game-6/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/liveblog-world-series-game-6/#When:23:55:28Z


Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Mike Fast 2009-11-04T23:55:28+00:00 Rays get something for nothing in Iwamura trade http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/rays-get-something-for-nothing-in-iwamura-trade/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/rays-get-something-for-nothing-in-iwamura-trade/#When:22:50:12Z
It was essentially a done deal that Iwamura would become a free agent so Tampa could move to Ben Zobrist as a full-time second baseman (with Sean Rodriguez knocking on the door for playing time). As time was going on, I was beginning to wonder if other teams would just wait out the Rays and bid on Iwamura as a free agent. While Iwamura is a valuable second baseman, he's definitely overpaid given his $4.25 salary in 2010. The bidding to have Iwamura join a team didn't seem enough to get a deal done. But it did, and the Pirates were the surprise victors. Iwamura instantly becomes the Pirates' highest-paid player (which is a whole separate post in and of itself.)

The Rays parlayed someone clearly overpaid -- yes, valuable, but overpaid -- into Jesse Chavez. The 25-year old just came off a season in which he posted a 4.01 ERA in 67.1 games along with a 1.35 WHIP and 6.3 K/9, a low number given his average velocity off his fastball: 94.5 mph.

The Rays Party goes into an extremely in-depth look at Chavez, so I'll point you there instead of fumbling my way through it using his data.

Even though Chavez is one of roughly a million live-arm middle relievers to pass through Major League Baseball and has yet to fully prove he belongs in the majors, I'm choosing to look at this glass half-full: the Rays got something for nothing. Iwamura isn't a zero, but from the Rays' perspective, he was. That alone makes it a great trade for Tampa.

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Evan Brunell 2009-11-04T22:50:12+00:00 THT Live Roundtable: WS Edition http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/tht-live-roundtable-ws-edition/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/tht-live-roundtable-ws-edition/#When:18:37:01Z I was very tempted to write a different title for this post, but I didn't want to scare away any readers. This edition is a strange one by our usual standards. Why is that? Because Carson Cistulli chimed in saying he'd like to take part. I mean that in the most positive way possible, Carson. It's been a long season, and tonight is either the last day of baseball, or the eve of the last day of baseball. So let's have a moment of silent reflection [pause]....and then go on to the roundtable.

Question #1: Brad Lidge's postseason struggles; are they 'real' or just a matter of perception?

Evan Brunell: Perception. It's okay to blow a game here and there in the postseason. Papelbon has done it. Rivera has done it. Heck, Lidge was nails this postseason until that three-run debacle in Game 4. Pedro Feliz juiced a game-tying home run, and the momentum had swung. Lidge choked, but a major, major part of that choke had to do with the dying quail (and what can you do about those?) off Damon's bat and the collective team choke of not covering third, which took away Lidge's dirt-burying slider.

Carson Cistulli: I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that Lidge has struggled in the postseason. Through 39.1 postseason IP (over a span of 11 series), Lidge has recorded 56 K, 15 BB, and only 2 HR-allowed. He's struck out over a third of the batters he's faced (56/158, 35.4%). For reference, here's a complete list of the pitchers who, this year, threw at least 40 IP and struck out a third of the batters they faced: Jonathan Broxton (38%) and Mike Wuertz (33.6%). That's it. And of course, you've got to figure that Lidge is facing better hitters in a playoff series.

Nutso, is what that is.

In terms of "perception," Brad Lidge did allow the giantest home run ever in a high-leverage playoff situation. That's gonna color anyone's perception of Lidge. But as far as performance go, Lidge has been basically as good as you'd want.

Adam Guttridge: As much as I'd tend to say 'real' (the reputation just seems overwhelming), the numbers won't let me. In 40 postseason innings, he's been positively dominant.

Now, the times he's been touched have come under some notable circumstances. But the bulk of that reputation comes from 3-4 of the ~40 innings, so we have to keep in mind the size of the sample guiding our intuition there.

That said, do I want to go to Lidge to close out the 9th tonight? Hell no, but that's much more a reflection of his terrible season than any post-season choke expectation.

Question #2: Did Charlie Manuel make the right move in holding back Cliff Lee given his inexperience starting on three days rest?

Evan Brunell: You know, I was extremely against Manuel's decision in the beginning, but I've come around on it. For one, there was no chance that Pedro Martinez was going to start Game 5. This means that Joe Blanton was likely to start it regardless. So then you're faced with a decision: Lee, then Blanton or Blanton and Lee?

At that point, if you're pitching both of them no matter what, don't you want to put Lee -- your ace pitcher -- in the best possible situation to deliver a win? That means pitching him on full rest and not yanking him out of his comfort zone.

Carson Cistulli: This is tough. While much is made over this or that pitcher's "ability" to throw on three days' rest, it seems like it's probably a pretty regular effect across the board -- an effect that's hard to detect because of the small samples.

If memory serves, Tango et al wrote about this in The Book. Unfortunately, I don't have it right here, but Daniel Moroz at MLB Notebook cites it and says that pitchers allow about a half a run more on short rest.

The right question to ask is: Is Cliff Lee plus .5 runs better than the Phillies fourth pitcher? Regardless of whether that "fourth pitcher" is Martinez or Blanton, the answer is probably "Yes."

Of course, there's stuff going on behind the scenes, too. Maybe Lee went to Manuel and said, "Charlie, I'm begging you. Whatever happens, don't make me pitch on three days rest."

Unlikely, sure. But something like could happen.

Adam Guttridge: I'd go with Lee rather than the alternatives. If there's anything to being 'dialed in' (which, I understand, is dubious), then Lee is it; his postseason thus far has been incredible. A guy like Lee who relies on command and movement moreso than power ought to be fine.

Question #3: Dave Cameron over at FanGraphs writes that Charlie Manuel has "cojones the size of the Liberty Bell." Eric Nusbaum of Pitchers and Poets praises the strength of Jayson Werth's soul patch. From all the remaining Phillies on the World Series roster, who has the most notable single feature?

Evan Brunell:Brad Lidge's mole. It's like a constant reminder that as perfect as Lidge can appear as a pitcher, there's always something lurking, waiting to mess it all up.

Carson Cistulli: It's a tough call between Chase Utley's hair and Chan Ho Park's beard. In case no one has noticed, Chase Utley has single-handedly attempted to reintroduce the Wet Look to North America*. And he's doing a pretty amazing job of it.

*Don't worry: It's doing fine in Southern Europe.

That said, how many Koreans have you seen who look like they've just entered Month Seven of their Appalachian Trail Experience?

Adam Guttridge: To me, it's two; the dichotomy presented by the bodies of Utley and Howard.

If we ignore skin color, Howard is the closest thing we've got physically to my perception of a modern Babe Ruth. And Utley, who could hide in one of Howard's shoes, still manages to generate more consistent power than all but a few players around the league. It's incredible.

Follow-up: How much would you pay Dave Cameron not to have made you think about Charlie Manuel's cojones? Is it more or less than the amount left on Brad Lidge's contract?

Evan Brunell: My mind is like a steel trap. It thinks what I want it to think, thus I was successfully able to fend off thinking about it.

Carson Cistulli:The Liberty Bell is pretty big, but it also has a giant crack in it. Is there a Chris Snyder thing going on here that we don't know about?

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Dan Novick 2009-11-04T18:37:01+00:00 On Mike Lupica http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/on-mike-lupica/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/on-mike-lupica/#When:17:38:10Z this ridiculous Mike Lupica article from today's NY Daily News. Craig already talked about it at NBC during his morning in exile from his soon to be retired lawyer unique perspective. But Jay at Fack Youk gives a much more scathing commentary on the same article. From the post:

You have to be a special kind of stupid to wait until the team is one win away from their first World Series in 9 years to start complaining about their lack of a #4 starter.

Oh by the way, the reason they don't have a #4 starter isn't because they "didn't have enough money left under the bed". It's because Chien Ming Wang, who had been their best pitcher over the previous three years, suddenly decided to suck. And Joba Chamberlain, who everyone wanted to go back to the bullpen (including Lupica, obviously), is back in the bullpen.

They will wonder at the same time about how much they think they could get for a copy of "The Joba Rules" on eBay about now.

How much are your books selling for on eBay, Mike? Let me check. One dollar.


It's entertaining to say the least.

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Dan Novick 2009-11-04T17:38:10+00:00 When down 3 games to 2 in the World Series .  .  . http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/when-down-3-games-to-2-in-the-world-series-.-.-/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/when-down-3-games-to-2-in-the-world-series-.-.-/#When:04:36:35Z
The question now is: what does history tell us of teams in this situation?

Well, there have been 57 previous best-of-seven World Series that reached a Game Six. In the sixth contest*, the trailing has amassed an impressive record of 35-22. Not too shabby. Actually, it was achieved in a very odd manner. The first two dozen such games were split evenly 12-12 between leaders and trailers. The most recent 18 games have been likewise split down the middle, 50% each. However, from 1955 to 1975, 15 World Series reached Game Six - and the trailing team went 14-1 in those games. Only in 1959 did the Series end in the sixth contest. Weird.

Anyhow, that's only half the battle. After going 35-22 in Game Six, the survivors went 17-18 in Game Seven. Overall then, teams trailing 3 games to 2 in a best of seven World Series go 17-40 in their quest for the World Championship, so odds are a bit over one-third.

Since I have the list with me, here's the roll call of the comebackers (grouped into fives for readability):

1924 WAS
1925 PIT
1926 STL
1934 STL
1940 CIN

1946 STL
1952 NYY
1958 NYY
1968 DET
1973 OAK

1979 PIT
1985 KCR
1986 NYM
1997 MIN
1991 MIN

2001 ARI
2001 ANA

Only the 1926 Cards and 2001 D-backs did it against the Yanks.

There's a wrinkle, though. Philly has to go on the road. Of the above 17 teams, only six did it on the road. They are: the 1979 Pirates, 1968 Tigers, 1958 Yankees, 1952 Yankees, 1934 Cardinals, and 1926 Cardinals. Interestingly, half of those teams came back from 3-to-1 deficits.

* Note: for purposes of this research, the tie in the 1912 World Series never happened. Thus Game Eight is considered Game Seven, and so on down the line).

Read more great baseball stuff at The Hardball Times.]]> Chris Jaffe 2009-11-03T04:36:35+00:00