This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.

Winning 1-0

Posted by Andy on February 1, 2010

Some facts about winning by a score of 1-0, all post-1954:

  • No team, since 1954, has ever won 3 straight games by a score of 1-0. I found this out by looking at the team batting streak finder.
  • The last team to win 2 straight 1-0 games was the 2006 Red Sox, who did it in games 92 and 93 of the year. The winning pitchers were Lester and Beckett.  Prior to that, it was the 2000 Dodgers. Prior to that, it was the 1996 Cardinals. Prior to that, it was the 1991 Angels. All of these cases were against the same opponent. Within the limits of the PI I was unable to find the last time it happened against two different opponents in consecutive games.
  • Each year there are roughly 20 to 50 games that end 1-0. Since 1993, the number has been between 26 and 42 each season. Here is a plot showing the percentage of games each year that end up as a 1-0 victory for one of the teams:

Fascinating. Here is yet another plot that clearly shows the Steroids Era, right there starting in 1993. Over the entire period, the fraction of such games has gone up and down quite a bit, often as much as a full percentage point from one year to the next. Suddenly, starting in 1993, the number has stayed almost perfectly constant despite it being a fairly rare event. It's no surprise that the overall percentage of such games has dropped--with offense coming more easily it's unusual for two teams to be limited to one total run in a game. However I'm not exactly sure why the amount of fluctuation has dropped off so much, again given how rare the event has become. Perhaps the fluctuation hasn't dropped off so much when considered as a percentage of the overall frequency. (What I mean is when the percentage was 3-4%, a variation of 1% was about 30% of the nominal value. Now that the percentage is hovering near 1.5%, a 30% variation is only about half a percentage point--however it seems that the actual fluctuation is even less than that.)

Let's here your theories on why 1-0 games vary so little nowadays.

13 Responses to “Winning 1-0”

  1. DavidRF Says:

    You don't need the PI for this.

    The Situational Reports page can find 1-0 games back to 1901.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/situational.shtml

    Since it just scans game logs, this tool could go back to 1871, but the UI is limiting. Anyhow, that tool just gives raw totals and not %'s but it would give you the tools to create a wider range plot which picks of the previous live-ball eras of 1911-12, 1920s, 1930sAL.

  2. wboenig Says:

    On September 12, 1969 the Mets swept a doubleheader from the Pirates by identical scores of 1-0, and in both games the starting pitchers (Jerry Koosman and Don Cardwell) drove in the runs.

  3. Andy Says:

    now THAT is a once-in-a-lifetime type arrangement.

    Here are the boxscores:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PIT/PIT196909121.shtml
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PIT/PIT196909122.shtml

  4. Raphy Says:

    While no team since 1954 has won 3 consecutive 1-0 games, the 1960 Phillies did lose 3 consecutive 1-0 games:
    http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/d5cbz
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/tgl.cgi?t=p&team=PHI&year=1960#24-26-sum

  5. Andy Says:

    This post was updated to fix the graph, which I accidentally ended at 2000 before.

  6. Johnny Twisto Says:

    I'd say the increased number of teams/games has helped limit the variation in % of 1-0 games.

  7. Gerry Says:

    The 1968 Cardinals shut out the Reds and Braves 1-0 in consecutive games, 8 and 9 August. I don't know whether this was the last time a team shut out two different opponents 1-0 in consecutive games.

  8. Raphy Says:

    Gerry- It was done 4 times after '68. Here are all the times since '54
    http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/W834c

  9. Cliff Says:

    1993: the "Steroid Era," okay, but no coincidence that '93 was also an expansion year, while steroids had no such clear-cut arrival date. See also big dips in '61, '69, and '77 (as well as in '87 for the juiced ball).

  10. NJBaseball Says:

    Ballparks have also probably helped reduce the number and frequency of 1-0 games. Even if they're not homer havens, places like PETCO and Citi Field have vast outfields that are bound to allow a run or two to score on double and triples.

  11. Gerry Says:

    Thanks, Raphy. I noticed that one of the lines in your table stood out as having many more at-bats over the two games than any of the others, so I had a look to see what the story might be. It turns out one of the two games, Detroit at Chicago, 13 August 1954, was scoreless through 15, and ended 1-0 with one out in the bottom of the 16th. And both pitchers went the distance! Tiger pitcher Al Aber had a game score of 101 - and lost. Talk about a tough loss! The White Sox' Jack Harshman won, and his game score was 109.

    You're not going to see that again any time soon.

  12. Johnny Twisto Says:

    NJBaseball, if the parks of the past weren't homer havens, isn't that because they had vast outfields?

  13. DoubleDiamond Says:

    I think that one reason the 1-0 scores have stayed about the same is because virtually every team follows the same strategy these days. And that strategy involves changing pitchers a lot more frequently and at certain set points in a game. You'd think that fresher pitchers may keep an opponent from scoring, but sometimes all the opposition needs is to get rid of a starter that has given them fits. It could be because it's time for the set-up man to come in for the 8th, or because a pitch count limit has been reached, or because what some of you call a LOOGY needs to come in to face a lefty. And in the National League, with a team either leading or trailing in a 1-0 game, that starter is not going to take his turn at bat after, say, the sixth inning (except maybe in a bunting situation). The team is going to want to get some offense going, to add insurance runs or get on the board for the first time.