Winning With A Run
Posted by Raphy on July 7, 2008
In the history of modern baseball there have only been two teams that have been able to win more games than they lost while only scoring 1 run. These 2 teams, the '06 Cubs (1906 that is) and the '69 Mets (also 1969) need no introduction as they are familiar to anyone who has spent 2 minutes watching baseball. Two other teams with less impressive resumes (The 1910 Reds and the 1960 Braves) have finished the season at .500 in such games. This season, the Angels can join this illustrious group. The Angels have scored 1 run in a game 5 times this season and are 3-2 in those games.
It is interesting to note that the other LA team, the one which is famous for winning 1-0 this season, has only done it that one time and in fact, leads the majors with 18 losses when scoring 1 run.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
The Angels have all sorts of anomalies this year. K-Rod's 34 Saves are largely due to the Angels winning more than their share of close games.
Also they have turned the Pythagorean theory upside down. They have a 6 game lead in the real standings, but according to Pythagoras and Bill James; they should be 5 games BEHIND the A's.
Thar's a swing of 11 games.
They also are upside down on their home road splits being 27-15 on the road and only 26-20 at home. They are also 16-5 vs Lefties.
Other anomalies: they are getting their best production from the Number 6 spot of the order, and much of their worst from spots 2 and 3. Figgins has only 9 RBI in 52 leadoff starts, and they havent thrown out anyone out on a SB attempt since June 18th.
If Anderson, Hunter, and Vlad have 2nd halfs anywhere near what they did last season, this team will be unstoppable.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I suspect the Angels will be in for a fall in the second half. It's amazing how well James' Pythagorean theory holds. Rarely does a single team deviate from expected W-L record by more than 3-4 games in any given year. Such anomalies are very hard to maintain over 162 games. I think the best the Angels can hope for is that they return to just expected behavior but maintain the lead they built in the first half. My guess is that they are under .500 in the second half and finish 5 to 10 games over .500 for the year, out of the playoffs.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I gotta disagree with you Andy, but I am an Angels fan, and I hope this is coming head my gut and not my heart.
I have watched pretty mcuh every inning this year, and this is not a team that is especially lucky. They put together big innings, but they dont blow leads either. A quick look at their roster shows that other than Santana, no one is having a career year.
Sure Saunders has a gaudy W-L, but then he always has had that. He was 15-8 over two seasons of up and down the alt Lake shuttle before getting a reular role this year. Garland and Weaver are good enough that they woiuld be 2-3 starters in many rotations and should continue to eat innings.
Arredondo is the only rookie in a key role, and in spite of K-Rod's super save total he really isn't pritvhing better than before, just in more situations.
No one on the offense has a OPS= near their career best at thsi point, and other than Kotchman, everyone of them can be called a disappointment. Yet this team has shown they can score runs outside the OPS. i don't think there is any reason to believe their skill in forcing errors, hitting behind the runner, taking the extra base on a single or challenging a drawn in infield are flukes.
I realize all the historical evidence backs up what you are saying, yet I believe this team has it in them to continue on pace to the 98 wins they currently project at.
They don't have the personality of the 69 Mets, but when you compare thier strengths and weaknesses--- ie great pitching up and down the roster, good road W-L, great record in 1 run games, below average yet functional offense; et al these teams are quite similar.
And according to the Pythaagorean theorem the Mets were +7 also. They should have finished behind the Cubs.