Phillies are done (Part 4: This time it’s for real)
Posted by Andy on October 24, 2010
The Phillies, somewhat shockingly, have been eliminated from the playoffs. Let me start by saying that this post is not intended as gloating, but rather continuing to make fun of myself for predicting that they wouldn't even make the playoffs.
Click through for a bit of analysis on why they didn't make it to the World Series.
First of all, the Phillies/Giants matchup featured perhaps the best pitching in a post-season series we've seen in a long time. I don't mean necessarily in terms of the actual outcome, but the overall strength of the pitching, particularly the starters, on paper was amazing.
By no means did the Phillies pitch poorly. The Giants batted .244 and scored 19 runs in 6 games. But the Giants pitched even better. They allowed 20 runs but the Phillies hit only .216.
The Phillies became just the third team in the Wild Card era to have no more than 9 hits in at least 6 NLCS games:
| Rk | Tm | Year | #Matching | W | L | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | STL | 1996 | 6 | 2 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 2 | STL | 2005 | 6 | 2 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 3 | PHI | 2010 | 6 | 2 | 4 | Ind. Games |
Not surprisingly, all of the teams lost the series although the 1996 Cardinals played another game that they won with more than 9 hits. The 1995 Mariners also did it.
Check out how good the pitching was all around in this year's LCS's:
| Rk | Player | Year | #Matching | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vladimir Guerrero | 2010 | 5 | Ind. Games |
| 2 | Jayson Werth | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 3 | Mark Teixeira | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 4 | Nick Swisher | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 5 | Jimmy Rollins | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 6 | Alex Rodriguez | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 7 | Edgar Renteria | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 8 | Buster Posey | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 9 | Aubrey Huff | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 10 | Brett Gardner | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 11 | Pat Burrell | 2010 | 4 | Ind. Games |
| 12 | Mike Young | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 13 | Chase Utley | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 14 | Juan Uribe | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 15 | Marcus Thames | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 16 | Freddy Sanchez | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 17 | Carlos Ruiz | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 18 | Cody Ross | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 19 | Jorge Posada | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 20 | Bengie Molina | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 21 | Ian Kinsler | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 22 | Raul Ibanez | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 23 | Ryan Howard | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 24 | Robinson Cano | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 25 | Lance Berkman | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
| 26 | Elvis Andrus | 2010 | 3 | Ind. Games |
These are the most LCS games in 2010 where a player got on base at most once, minimum 3 PA in each game. Of these top 26 players, we have 5 Rangers, 8 Yankees, 6 Phillies, and 7 Giants.
Last year there were only 21 such games, the same as in 2008. In 2007 there were just 17. This kind of crude analysis depends a lot on how many LCS games are played, of course.
Then there's the curious case of Roy Oswalt. He was brought over in a trade and was a difference-maker for the Phillies. His stellar performance in the regular-season with the Phillies (0.895 WHIP over 82.2 innings, 232 ERA+) was huge, but his post-season numbers end up looking weird. He earned a 5.40 ERA in his no-decision against the Reds. He didn't pitch poorly except for 2 homers he allowed. Then his numbers against the Giants look great at first glance--1.84 ERA over 14.2 innings with 3 BB and 14 K, but weren't actually as good as that. He allowed the game-winner to score in relief in Game 4 and allowed 9 of his 12 other hits in just 6 innings of Game 6. I'm not saying he pitched poorly, but I would guess that Phillies fans had something different in mind when he went up against the weak-hitting Giants in Game 6.
Personally I think the Giants-Rangers World Series matchup is both a blessing and a curse for MLB. The TV ratings are going to be poor, for sure, especially in comparison to recent years. That's bad. But ultimately, spreading the World Series appearances around to teams who haven't been there much (or at all) will help. No Yankees, no Phillies, no Red Sox, and no Cardinals. There's been just one World Series since 2002 (the 2005 one featuring the White Sox and Astros) that didn't have at least 1 of those teams.
October 24th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Maybe, just maybe, one of these days someone will point out that the competitive balance in baseball is as strong as it has ever been. There have always been dominant teams in baseball. There have always been teams that went long stretches without being able to compete. There have always been a certain percentage of teams that entered any given year with no chance of winning.
These are not new phenomena, and there is actually very little evidence that any of these things have become worse in the past 2 decades.
Just one quick example, in the decade 2001-2010, a total of 15 different teams made the World Series. That's 50% of the MLB clubs in that time period. In the decade 1971-1980, a total of 10 teams made the World Series out of 24 total clubs (26 for the years 1977-80). In the 70s there were 2 teams that won 2 series each (Yanks, Reds, Pirates) and another that won 3 (A's). In the 00s, the Yanks and Red Sox won 2, no other club won more than 1.
Yes, expanded playoffs help, but that's part of the point...in the past decade there were more chances for a club to compete for the championship than there were in the 70s.
October 24th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Sorry for the typo...there were THREE teams that won 2 series each in the 70s (Yanks, Reds, Pirates).
October 24th, 2010 at 10:12 am
The only place competitive balance cannot and will not exist is the American League East. When you have Yankee money it is possible, not to buy a World Series every year but to buy a yearly playoff spot. The Red Sox were putting forth that money but their success is cyclical much like the Cardinals. One can point out the Braves' dominance from '91-'05 but that was extremely focused on having a certain 3-4 pitchers around. Competitive balance in the National League is alive and well.
October 24th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Except that the Sox, Rays, and Yankees are all in that division...heck, the Yankees didn't make the playoffs in 2008. And Toronto was the feel-good story of the year for the first half of 2010. The AL East is in fact highly competitive.
Not to mention, you could have said essentially the same thing about the AL as a whole from 1947-64, when the Yankees won 15 pennants in 18 seasons.
October 24th, 2010 at 10:32 am
This Giants/Phillies 2010 NLCS has a strong connection to the Dodgers/Mets 1988 NLCS. Not only did an underdog West Coast team defeat a powerful East Coast team, but a player named Howard struck out looking on a fastball to end both series. In 1988, Howard Johnson struck out looking on an Orel Hershiser fastball to end the 1988 NLCS. I guess we can now dub Ryan Howard as Ryan Howard-Johnson. Also, in 1988 a Hershiser/Gooden showdown was every bit as exciting as a Lincecum/Halladay showdown. Also notice that Tim Lincecum wears #55 like Orel Hershiser and has the same head tilt on his delivery as Hershiser had.
October 24th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I expect to hear a lot about the low TV ratings for the WS, which is unfortunate because it furthers the impression that baseball is falling in popularity. What the ratings won't show is the number of people in San Francisco and (especailly) Dallas who have become engaged or re-engaged in baseball. Getting those people to care about the sport will pay incredible divedends for years to come.
October 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Another reason the Phillies didn't win was errors. They made errors upon errors upon errors (some of these plays were not officially errors, but were still plays that should be made). Chase Utley alone seemed to boot more balls at second base in those last 6 games then he did all season. Bad throws, balls off the glove, botched double plays--it all added up.
Which isn't to say that the Giants played poorly. On the contrary, they took advantage of the Phillies' mistakes and were able to come up with big runs when it counted. And of course, they pitched really, really well.
October 24th, 2010 at 10:57 am
@Dave - it goes against the grain of the modern sports fan to think that there's more than one way to construct a team. Particularly, that you can have competition without a salary cap. So, I don't think you're going to hear much about competition in Baseball, even in a year when two of the biggest spenders get knocked out of the playoffs.
October 24th, 2010 at 11:02 am
@Andy: In regard to you making fun of your former prediction; at the time you said that the Phillies were done, they were sinking fast and looking bad. At least you are not Michael Kay. After the first game of the ALCS, he declared that Texas was done. Just because it was a tough defeat and Texas' bullpen looked like crap.
There are predictions that are wrong, and predictions that are moronic. Your prediction was wrong not moronic.
October 24th, 2010 at 11:05 am
BTW, with the Phillies & Yankees out of the playoffs and the Red Sox and Mets not making them, doesn't that take care of the top 4 spenders in baseball?
Stupid, idiot teams with their cash dollars!
October 24th, 2010 at 11:26 am
I think a point that is lost in the competitive balance/imbalance debate is that the failure of high-salaried teams does not mean that the system is fair. Teams like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Dodgers, Red Sox, and others have a decided advantage over other teams. The Royals are looking at trading Zack Greinke; the Indians had to trade Sabathia and Lee; Oakland had no shot at re-signing Giambi and Tejada. Yes, money alone does not equal success. But it certainly ups the likelihood. The Yanks can hide a big money mistake like Kei Igawa in the minors, while other teams will be doomed for a decade by such bad deals. If you think that this WS is evidence that the system is fair, you're wrong.
October 24th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Is there a way to use the PI to look at players postseason totals for a year or career? I want to look at some of the Phillies numbers, some strong players just aren't cutting it in October.
October 24th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Mr. Odd, you can get that info on each player's individual page, a bit further down below their regular-season stats.
BSK makes an important point. Just because the Phillies and Yankees got knocked out, the mere fact that the high-payroll teams are still making the playoff often is the more important reality.
October 24th, 2010 at 11:47 am
The Cardinals won the 7th game of the '96 NLCS? I think you typo'd. 😉
I'm pretty excited about a Rangers-Giants series, 'cause I love seeing teams that never made it that far before & the Giants ballpark is just awesome. I live in NY, but I've really gotten sick of hearing about the Yankees. So this'll be a nice series for that reason too.
October 24th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Amen, BSK, Amen.
October 24th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
@4
Dave, your point about the Yankees dominating the AL from 1947-64 is valid, but why draw the line there?
The Yanks also won 14 of 23 pennants from 1921-43.
So in the 44 years from 1921-64, they won 29 pennants (nearly 2/3) and 20 WS titles, and had just 1 season below .500. And in 5 of the 15 years that they didn't win the AL, they had a W% of .607 or higher -- a 98-win pace in a modern schedule.
Their 5-year pennant "drought" from 2004-08 was the 3rd longest since Babe Ruth joined the team. (They went 14 years from 1982-95, and 11 years from 1965-75.)
The Yankees will have a financial edge for the forseeable future. But it will be interesting to see how they fare in the next few years, as the "core 4" ages out of championship caliber. The team's current business plan -- "outspend everyone" -- is not the same model that brought them their 4 titles from 1996-2000. Here's where they ranked in AL payroll and number of top-10 salaried players in their pennant years from 1996-2009:
-- 1996: 2nd to Baltimore / 1 of top 10 (#9)
-- 1998: 2nd to Baltimore / 1 of top 10 (#3)
-- 1999: 1st, by $6mm / 3 of top 10 (#3, 4, 10)
-- 2000: 1st, by $11mm / 3 of top 10 (#2, 3, 6)
-- 2001: 1st, by $3mm / 3 of top 10 (#6, 7, 10)
-- 2003: 1st, by $49mm / 3 of top 10 (#4, 6, 10)
-- 2009: 1st, by $80mm / 6 of top 10 (#1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9)
The Yankees' habit of vastly outspending everyone took hold in 2002. From 2003-10, the payroll gap between NYY and the next-highest AL team has been at least $44 million every year, with a high of $85mm in 2005 (69% above Boston). This spending pattern has brought them 2 pennants and 1 WS title in 9 years, well below their historic average.
October 24th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Mr. Odd #12: If you go to Batting Game Finder, click the Post-Season button, click the button for Players with Most Matching Games in Multiple Years, and limit the search to just the Phillies and the years to just 2007-2010, you'll get, on one page, a bunch of cumulative post-season hitting stats for each of the Phillies over the team's run of playoff seasons.
October 24th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
"The team's current business plan -- "outspend everyone" -- is not the same model that brought them their 4 titles from 1996-2000."
They were still outspending everyone or nearly everyone, just not by the same margin. They found more success in the 90's with it but they still have made the playoffs every year but 1. They dominate the league for a variety of factors, an important one of which is their revenue stream. And their revenue stream is almost entirely the result of their geographic location, which, as far as I'm concerned, should not be a determining factor in the success or failure of a team.
October 24th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Basketball-Reference did an interesting study where they looked at the amount of player turnover a team had, by comparing the number of minutes played by the same players over a given time span. It'd be interesting to see something done like that in baseball and see how that correlates with spending in baseball. Many people point to the "Core 4" as evidence that the Yanks don't just buy free agents. But how many other teams would have been able to keep a "Core 4" together? And how important is this consistency to winning? Are the Yankees an aberration? Or does low turnover generally correlate with more consistent success?
October 24th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Devon, all I meant was that there was a seventh game played in addition to the six listed, in which the Cards went 2-4.
October 24th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
@11 / BSK --
I can't dispute that the big-money teams have a competitive advantage, nor that MLB could do more to promote a level playing field.
At the same time, most of the other teams could do a far better job spending the money they do have. Year after year, we see several big-$ contracts basically "eaten" by the team that gave them out just a few years prior; many of those deals looked foolish from the outset. Yet many GMs are still slow to learn. As a Tigers fan, I cringed upon reading that they had given a 2-year, $11-million deal to Brandon Inge, a 33-year-old 3B with a career slash line of .237 / .307 / .394, with recent seasons fitting right into that pattern. So what if it's a slight pay cut for Inge -- I simply can't imagine any other team wanting to give Inge that kind of money.
The current rules generally insure that the top-tier veterans end up with the big-money teams, and that does harm the other clubs. But most of the other teams do themselves at least that much harm by overpaying second- and third-tier players.
October 24th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
@18 / BSK -- "their revenue stream is almost entirely the result of their geographic location, which, as far as I'm concerned, should not be a determining factor in the success or failure of a team."
I think the Yankees' success is founded on more than their revenue stream, which in turn derives from more than just their population advantage.
How do you explain the Dodgers' failure to win a pennant in the last 22 years? LA is the 2nd-biggest metropolitan area in the country -- well behind NYC, but well ahead of Chicago.
And speaking of Chicago ... In the 34 years since the dawn of free agency, the Cubs -- who had a big edge in cable TV revenue for the first decade of the free-agent era -- have won no pennants and 1 playoff series, and have made the postseason just 4 times in the 16 years of the expanded format. And while the White Sox have won one WS in the free-agent era, they've made the playoffs just 4 other times and won none of those series.
The 4th-biggest metro area is Dallas/Ft. Worth. What have they been doing with their supposed financial advantage?
Boston is just the 10th-largest metro area. Why have they been so successful in the last decade?
Minnesota is the 16th-biggest metro area. In 50 years, they've won 2 WS titles and 3 pennants, and have been in the postseason 11 times.
Money helps. But money alone does not guarantee success. And shallow pockets do not prevent success.
(Population data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas.)
October 24th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
John Austin-
There is no denying that. Teams makes plenty of mistakes. The logic is often, "We can't get the big guys, so let's overspend on the middle guys." That is a failed strategy. That money could be invested in their own young players. Slowly but surely, I think we're seeing teams get smarter. But low-budget teams definitely make their fair share of mistakes. They just lack the warchest to ignore them that other teams have.
October 24th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
In post 1 Dave mentions 15 teams have appeared in the world series in the last 10 years. That seems pretty good to me. I remember reading a similar stat which supposedly showed the luxury tax has helped bring more balance to the game. There will never be complete balance, it's just not the way the world works.
By comparison, there have been 14 teams in the last 10 Superbowls, 13 teams in the last 10 Stanley Cup finals, 10 teams in the last 10 FA Cup finals and 10 teams in the last 10 NBA finals (only 3 winners). It seems like baseball is doing alright to me...
October 24th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Basmati-
I don't know if that stat, which is often trotted out, gets at what people are really talking about when they speak of competitive balance and parity. Yes, many teams have gotten to the WS. But how many teams have made it to the playoffs? I realize that the MLB has a bit of a disadvantage compared to other sports simply because they have fewer spots, but many, many teams have not sniffed the playoffs for a decade. In football, off the top of my head, I can only think of one team (Detroit) that has not made the playoffs this decade. There is no doubt that a lot of the blame falls to the teams themselves, but there are many ways of measuring competitive balance, and I'm not sure teams in the WS is the best one. Fans want to know their team has a chance at being competitive. When is the last time fans of the Pirates or Royals or Orioles or Nationals/Expos have entered the season with even a scintilla of optimism?
October 24th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Could somebody with more time and knowhow then me make a list of the top average game score for a team in the playoffs? or rather in a playoff round?
October 24th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Relax, Andy. And thanks for the running "Phillies Are Done" posts; things like this make this medium much more enjoyable.
October 24th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
To follow up on my earlier post, the following teams are on 10+ season streaks without a post-season appearance:
Nationals/Expos: 29 years
Royals: 25 years
Pirates: 18 years
Blue Jays: 17 years
Orioles: 13 years
You've also got the Mariners at 9 years with a good shot at pushing it to 10.
In the NFL, you've got:
Bills: 10
Lions: 10
You've also got the expansion Texans who have not made it in their 8 year existence.
In the NBA, you've got no one with 10+ years. The Timberwolves and Knicks are tied at the longest streak with 6 years.
In the NHL, you've got no one with 10+ years. The Panthers have the longest streak with 9 years.
Now, obviously the NBA (16), NHL (16), and NFL (12) put more teams in the post-season than MLB (8), but this shows a lot of teams have had very little to root for for a very long time.
October 24th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
OK, I started out doing this, then realized it’s not completely germane to the thread, but anyway…
The Yankee dominance of 1947-64 is often cited (mostly by Yankee fans) as proof that dynasties are good for a sport, baseball in particular. In fact, those years crippled the American League and set back baseball in other American League cities for years – and some of those cities never recovered. At any age – but especially for people under 30 – it’s really difficult to give a crap when your team is out of it every year and the same damned team is winning. To my point:
In 1946, attendance in the AL was about 9.6M, the NL was 8.9M (advantage AL by about 12%). Then the Yankees started winning every year - and average attendance in the AL started declining. Attendance would increase in years when other teams won the pennant and the year following. I can almost hear fans in Cleveland or Boston thinking “we have a chance!” By 1953, AL attendance had fallen to just under 7M. In ’54 the Indians won and attendance jumped no nearly 9M by 1955. By 1958 it was back down to 7.3M. The Chisox won the pennant and by 1960, attendance was up to 9.2M. the Yankees won every pennant until 1964, and despite expansion, attendance was still 9.2M. In the period between 1946 and 1964, attendance in the AL dropped 4%. And the Yankees were drawing a million less per year than they had in 1946. How about the NL, where every team except the Cubs won a pennant in that time (and every team except the Cubs and the Pirates were within 5 games of another pennant at least once)? NL attendance climbed 36%. Teams had left Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington with their tails between their legs.
In 2010, there are teams in Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Miami, Toronto, Baltimore, Oakland, and Washington that are stuck on a treadmill that doesn’t give their team or their fans even the faintest sniff of the postseason. And there are others in Tampa, Minnesota, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, San Diego, Milwaukee and Seattle where it feels like they are just a couple of bad decisions or losing a couple of key free agents (see Twins and Rays, e.g.) from being in the same boat. Unlike the franchises of the 50’s who were facing financial ruin, the teams of the 21st century have no places to go (Las Vegas? Portland? Buffalo?). 2011 will begin with the same presumption we’ve had since the late 90’s – that the Yankees are the favorites to win the World Series. That can’t be good for anyone – except the NFL.
October 24th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I watched the Rangers Yankees series as well as the Phillies Giants series. The Yankees weaknesses, a cadre of aging ballplayers and mediocre middle inning spiching was glaringly exposed and they derserved to lose...which they did. in humiliating fashion.
The Phillies Giants series was very very good to watch....close gamea and some stellap piuching. I was reminded of how little I think of Ryan Howard.,.,in the last AB of the series. Wilson pitched beautfully up or away and the final pich, low...that crossed at the knees and sank was a beautiful pitch with three outomes, a strke a rolled grounder or a called ball. And Howard never choked up, not even a quarter of an inch and didnt ptotect the strike zone..... which he cannot do....And he has more holes in his strike zone then Swiss cheese....How embarassing to make the final out (with two men on) and strike out with the bat on your shoulder.....but Wilsonn did set him up beautiflly.
Frankly I think Charlie Manuel should have pich hit for Howrd. Somewhere on that Phillies bech there has to be someone with a better chance of putting the ball in play...then Howrard. The Phillies survival was on the line...and he let a guy who strikes out close to 200 a times year hit...in the most crucila moment of the series!!!!!
October 24th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I watched the Rangers Yankees series as well as the Phillies Giants series. The Yankees weaknesses, a cadre of aging ballplayers and mediocre middle inning spiching was glaringly exposed and they derserved to lose...which they did. in humiliating fashion.
The Phillies Giants series was very very good to watch....close gamea and some stellap piuching. I was reminded of how little I think of Ryan Howard.,.,in the last AB of the series. Wilson pitched beautfully up or away and the final pich, low...that crossed at the knees and sank was a beautiful pitch with three outomes, a strke a rolled grounder or a called ball. And Howard never choked up, not even a quarter of an inch and didnt ptotect the strike zone..... which he cannot do....And he has more holes in his strike zone then Swiss cheese....How embarassing to make the final out (with two men on) and strike out with the bat on your shoulder.....but Wilsonn did set him up beautiflly.
Frankly I think Charlie Manuel should have pich hit for Howrd. Somewhere on that Phillies bech there has to be someone with a better chance of putting the ball in play...then Howrard. The Phillies survival was on the line...and he let a guy who strikes out close to 200 a times year hit...in the most crucila moment of the series!!!!!
October 24th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I watched the Rangers Yankees series as well as the Phillies Giants series. The Yankees weaknesses, a cadre of aging ballplayers and mediocre middle inning spiching was glaringly exposed and they derserved to lose...which they did. in humiliating fashion.
The Phillies Giants series was very very good to watch....close gamea and some stellap piuching. I was reminded of how little I think of Ryan Howard.,.,in the last AB of the series. Wilson pitched beautfully up or away and the final pich, low...that crossed at the knees and sank was a beautiful pitch with three outomes, a strke a rolled grounder or a called ball. And Howard never choked up, not even a quarter of an inch and didnt ptotect the strike zone..... which he cannot do....And he has more holes in his strike zone then Swiss cheese....How embarassing to make the final out (with two men on) and strike out with the bat on your shoulder.....but Wilsonn did set him up beautiflly.
Frankly I think Charlie Manuel should have pich hit for Howrd. Somewhere on that Phillies bech there has to be someone with a better chance of putting the ball in play...then Howrard. The Phillies survival was on the line...and he let a guy who strikes out close to 200 a times year hit...in the most crucila moment of the series!!!!!
October 24th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
No one has suggested the game is "fair" if by "fair" you mean every chance has an exactly equal chance to make the playoffs. But it would be absurd to expect that. That has never been the case in any sport, ever.
My point was that compared to virtually any time period in its history, baseball has a very level of competitive balance right now. There are more times that are either having success now, or have had success in recent memory, than at virtually any time in baseball's history. So in contrast to the doomsayers, baseball seems to be doing just fine. And as other posters have pointed out, it's doing very well compared to other sports, who have to go through the facade of adding more and more teams to the postseason just to keep fan bases interested.
To the point that many teams enter the season with no hope, I would respectfully disagree on two counts. First, this is not historically unusual. If you know anything about the game's history, you know that many teams go through long stretches like this. The Phillies, A's (both Philly and KC), Browns, Senators, Red Sox, Braves all had decades-long stretches (much longer than the current stretches of the O's and Mariners for example) where they did not sniff a pennant, or often a winning record. The fact that five teams have gone 10+ years without making the playoffs is just not unusual historically. It is the norm.
Second, I dispute the specific cases of the O's, Mariners, and Blue Jays. Jays fans can still remember 2 WS championships; Giants fans should be so lucky. The O's were a terrific team in the second half of the 90s, and would be again if they had any talent in the front office. The Mariners had a great run at the beginning of this decade. Only the Pirates, Royals, and Expos/Nats are really in long dryspells. I'll take baseball's history of competitive balance over the pseudo-balance of the other major sports any time.
October 24th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@ Ryan Howard actually struck out on either a slider or cutter. Wilson throws extremely hard and his slider clocks in at around 90-91
October 24th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
@5* that is
October 24th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Dave-
I think you're not really doing the situation justice. Is baseball better now then before? Sure. I'll concede that point. I'm too young to remember very much before the Wild Card era, so I'll accept what you've offered as fact. But just because it is doing better does not mean it is doing well. And before you attack other leagues for adding playoff teams, only MLB has added teams recently, doubling from 4 entrants to 8 with the creation of the three divisions and the Wild Card. If anyone is "gimmicky" in this approach, it's MLB.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue is not so much that teams struggle for so long. Poorly run franchises, regardless of the rules, will suffer. But what MLB has created (and may have always had) is a system where some fans feel (rightfully, in most cases) that their team has no chance, short-term or long-term. Look at other sports... yea, the Lions have sucked for a long time, but with the nature of the NFL, their fans know they are just a couple of good drafts away from contending again. Granted, their recent run of GMs have drafted poorly, but they've ousted them and SEEM to be on the path to competitiveness. The Pirates need to do a lot more than just draft well... 3 good drafts need to be better than the other teams drafts PLUS make up for any talent they lose through FA, since they are almost guaranteed of a net loss there, regardless of how smart or shrewd they are. Ask any Pirate fan what his team will have to do to compete and he'll likely describe a complete change in the structure of the team, plus a lot of patience. Yes, the Rays did it, but how long did it take? And how long was their window open? Even in the thick of the pennant race, there were calls for them to trade Crawford since they have virtually no shot at signing him.
Teams in other leagues succeed or fail largely as a function of their own actions (with the obvious share of luck thrown in). There are some income disparities, but the other leagues work pretty aggressively to address these. In my opinion, MLB falls far short in the endeavor, and it's unclear how much they really care about it. Much of the Yankees edge (and the Red Sox and the Chicago teams and the LA teams...) is derived from where they are geographically positioned. Coupled with MLB's restriction on team movement, it creates an unbalanced system. Personally, I'd rather see teams succeed or fail on their own merits rather than where they are located or what demographic patterns are in their area or what cable deals they can negotiate. Let baseball people and baseball players decide what happens on the field, not cable execs or politicians or whatever else is happening. I recognize these are realities and will always be realities for any sport, but they are worst in baseball with no light at the end of the tunnel at this point.
And I say this as a Red Sox fan, and while they are disadvantaged relative to the Yankees, I realize they are still one of the upper-echelon teams with regards to income and benefit from the slanted playing field. I say that for whatever it's worth, since the position I am taking is often dismissed as the selfish ramblings of bitter, low-revenue fans.
October 24th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
I posted the following somewhere else, but I think it's worth repeating here.
Over the last three seasons, three different AL East franchises have made the playoffs, which is more than either of the other American League divisions in that same time period.
October 24th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
The Phillies aren't really that good. They are an aging team just like the Yankmees... I'm glad there is new blood in the World Series. I already know it's going to be a great World Series because I don't have to watch those crappy teams play! Thank god the Phillies suck donkey dong!
October 25th, 2010 at 10:58 am
@30-32
Pinch hit for Howard, the $25 million dollar man? With whom...Mike Sweeney? Brian Schneider? It ain't gonna happen.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Re: #29
I think demographic changes had more to do with declining baseball attendance than did Yankee dominance.
In general, more people were moving to the suburbs from the city and, as they did so, attendance dropped. In addition, the eastern states where most of the franchises were located were losing a lot of population. As the leagues expanded around the country, particularly into large population centers like California and Texas, attendance began to improve again. Of course, when the Dodgers moved out of little Ebbets Field and to Los Angeles, and the Giants moved to San Francisco, the NL got a huge boost in attendance. The fact that the Dodgers were dominant in the NL, winning 10 pennants in the 20-year period from 1947-1966, didn't seem to hurt at all.
October 25th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Re: #30, 31, 32
If it's worth saying once, it's worth saying three times. 🙂
October 25th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
@40 - How then do you explain the NL increasing in attendance by almost 40%? Sure, the Giants and Dodgers moved, but so did the A's, Browns and Senators. The AL also added a team in LA. In fact, looking at the 5 year average for the A's and Browns before and after they moved and comparing it to the Dodgers and Giants, the percentage increases were markedly higher for the AL teams (267% vs. 82%) and the raw difference was that the NL gained about 1.5M from those two franchise moves and the AL gained about 1.2M. And how do you explain that attendances increased significantly in years when the Yankees were not winning the pennant and the year immediately following? Sure people were moving to the suburbs, etc., but they were doing that in Cincinatti and Pittsburgh in similar rates as they were in New York and Cleveland.
We're seeing something similar in the current phase of Yankee dominance. In 1995 the AL (after a run of very competetive years) was even (well, slightly ahead) of the NL in average attendance. The Yankees, in fact, we a little under the AL average in attendance. By 2003, attendance at Yankee home games had more than doubled, but the average non Yankee home game in the AL was up only 3% while the NL had climbed about 14%. In 2004-07 (no Yankee pennants) the average AL attendance increased 13%. It's decreased significanty since then, but so has the NL due to, one would assume, economic pressures. For the period of 1995-2010, attendance at AL games has increased 13% (only 6.6 in games not played at Yankee Stdium), while in the NL it is up 26.5%
October 25th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Really pinch hit for Ryan Howard? That is just plain dumb. The guy had a very good series. Why not point out that the Phils should have pinch hit for everyone not named Werth and Howard. Utley was a disaster, Victorino was an out machine, Rollins was old and slow, Ruiz was ok, etc. Howard slugged .500 and had an OBP around.4 I thought, why in the world would you pinch hit for him there? That makes no sense. Unless you are a racist.
October 25th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I have no idea why anyone would pinch hit for Ryan Howard, but why would thinking so make one a racist? I don't think Howard had a very good series, but anything can happen, good or bad, in a few games. It's just magnified in a short series. Bucky Dent, who wasn't worthy to be Howard's piss boy, was a World Series MVP. Meanwhile, Howard was awful in last year's World Series but was awesome in the '09 NLCS. He was great in the '08 World Series but bad in the '08 ALDS against Milwaukee. But you don't pinch hit for your clean up hitter.
October 26th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I have no idea why anyone would pinch hit for Ryan Howard
Cause he has an immense platoon split and is a barely average hitter vs LHP?
October 26th, 2010 at 8:45 am
For all the 'RBIs are not important' guys, so the Phillies' lead RBI guy gets no RBIs. the Phillies lose. I don't know, I think had Howard knocked in half of the 7 runs which he on average batted in every 9 games during the season, there might have been a different result.
October 26th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The argument is not (or shouldn't be) that RBI are not important, it's that RBI are not a great way of evaluating hitters. Obviously players need to drive in (and score) runs, or it's hard to win the game.
Some extremists do argue that RBI are "meaningless," and I strongly disagree with them. We just need to understand their limitations -- same as with every statistic.
October 26th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Re: #45:
Yes, but he was facing a RHP when he took the called third strike to end the series.
Re: #42 (LJF)
LJ, I recall an article that Bill James wrote about this topic in his original historical baseball abstract. It is on pages 212-213 of the revised original version (1988) and was also in his New Historical Baseball Abstract (pages 240-241). It is entitled "The Fifties Nobody Talks About: Baseball in Trouble."
Anyway, the article points out that the Dodgers drew 1.8 million in 1946 but by 1957 were down to about 1 million despite being on an almost Yankee-esque run of pennants in '47, '49, '52, '53, '55 and '56. The Giants, featuring the incomparable Willie Mays, dropped from 1.6 million in 1947 to 654,000 in 1957. So I don't think anything the Yankees did could have had an effect on the attendance of the Giants and Dodgers.
Here is a link to the article:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3uSbqUm8hSAC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=%22the+fifties+nobody+talks+about%22+bill+james&source=bl&ots=1ks9i62Esi&sig=qwHe_zG8TaFawxEkjFtbsaOk0YE&hl=en&ei=oQzHTP_cKovSngebyZmQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
October 27th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
@48, Todd --
Good point about declining attendance in the '50s. The 1955 Giants -- as defending champs, with reigning MVP Mays pounding out 51 HRs -- played to an average home crowd of about 13,000. Out of 63 home dates (they played 14 home doubleheaders), at least 16 had crowds of less than 5,000 and 9 of less than 3,000.
On the other hand, attendance trends were a little different back then. There were far fewer season tickets sold, so attendance tended to fluctuate more with the team's in-season fortunes. And although the '55 Giants finished a respectable 3rd, they were 10 games out by the end of May and were never in the race. And the 1956-57 clubs finished 6th.
The Dogers' attendance, by contrast, was healthy right up through their last year in Brooklyn. A figure of 1 million isn't good by today's standards, but considering that they had already announced their departure and still ranked 5th out of 8 in attendance, it's pretty good.