The Yankees won last night (yay!) and oddly enough it was the first time since 1970 a G4 was won by the team down 0-3. In fact of the 24 times before this year a team has been up 3 games to none, 21 times it ended in a sweep and the other 3 ended in Game 5. That's pretty crazy when you think about it.These teams are presumably evenly matched. Even if you say "well 3-0 means they aren't evenly matched smart guy!" and you say one team has a 40% chance of winning a game* you'd expect 9-10 Game 5s instead of the three we've seen, around 4 G6s, and 1-2 G7s.
Now of course teams will lose G4 for the same reasons they could win it, but if you are having 21 teams crash out instead of say 13 some of those teams are just giving up. So let's see who. This is my takes from the series I remember watching.
2012 Detroit Tigers. Fighters. Lost G2 and G3 by 2-0 scores (yes a Bumgarner game was in there) and lost G4 in extra innings.
2007 Rockies. Fighters in this game only. They put up their best (only) effort of the series in G4 losing by 1 and twice scoring late after the Red Sox scored to expand their lead.
2005 Astros. Fighters. The fightingist swept losers ever! In every game, would lose the series by a combined 6 runs in 4 games. G4 was 0-0 until the Top of the 8th
2004 Cardinals. Quitters. After being unable to take G1 with 9 runs the Cards packed it in for the series putting up little resistance to the Red Sox of Destiny despite winning 105 games themselves. G4 featured three singles and a lone double
1999 Braves. Quitters. After being game in the series, Yankees took the wind out of their sails in G3 winning in extras on a Chad Curtis homer. Ouch. Smoltz would try bu the offense packed it in for G4.
1998 Padres. Fighters. They almost won G1 and G3 holding leads late against maybe the best Yankee team of this stretch. Put 10 men on base in G4 but couldn't bring any home.
1990 A's. Quitters. The dynasty that never was got beat up by Cincy in G1 and G3. G4 was close but only bc Dave Stewart wasn't going to get embarrassed again as he was in G1. He was great. The A's scored one run in the 1st but that was it for hits and after a 2 out walk in the second made 22 consecutive outs to end the game
1989 Giants. Fighters. It wasn't to be at all but down 8-0 the Giants valiantly cut it to 8-6 going into the 8th. It just was too little too late.
From here it's stats only.
1976 Yankees. Fighters. The Reds would win by 5 but that was bc of a 4 run top of the 9th. Yankees scored first and responded to the Reds scoring 3, just couldn't beat the Big Red Machine
1966 Dodgers. Quitters in general but I guess fighters in G4. The Dodgers hitters hit .142 for the series with 1 homer. Sure pitching but you know my motto - teams don't win, they lose. Anyway in the 9th with one out the Dodgers got their 4th single of the game and then drew their second walk but they couldn't bring the tying run home.
1963 Yankees. Fighters? Similar to the 1966 Dodgers, questionable effort during the series but in G4 fought, scoring in the 7th and putting a man on in the 7th after that, a man on in the 8th and 9th.
1954 Indians Quitters. Mainly the pitcher Bob Lemon who didn't have it and the manager Al Lopez who let him hang out there until he lost it.
1950 Phillies Quitters. The Whiz Kids. went down without a fight to the Yanks only scoring 2 runs in the top of the 9th thanks to a HBP and a flyball error.
1939 Reds. Fighters. Teams were at 0-0 until the 7th then it went 2-0, 2-3, 2-4, 4-4. But in extras the Yankees would score 3 and put it away.
1938 Cubs Quitters. Hitters seemed game. Pitchers let them get a lead early and gave up runs every time the Cubs tried to mount a comeback.
1932 Cubs Fighters. Down 1-0 after 1 Cubs made it 4-1 Then down 5-4 in the 6th Cubs tied it up. Yankees run roughshod after that to make in 13-6, but these are some prime Yankee teams. Yankes hit .313 / .412 / .521 as a team for the series
1928 Cardinals. Quitters I guess. This might be the most lop-sided series ever, a title usually taken by some 1960s series with dominant pitching. The Yankees only trailed after 4 in G4 which they'd put away int he 7th. Won every game by at least 3. If the Cards quit it was starting in G1 not for just G4.
1927 Pirates. Fighters. Murderer's Row would complete the sweep but not before the Pirates scored 2 in the 7th to tie the game at 3 all. Yanks would walk it off in a wild b9. After a walk and single and wild pitch, Pirates would intentially walk Babe Ruth. After Gerhig and Bob Meusel struck out with the bases loaded and no outs the winning run would come in on the second wild pitch of the inning.
1922 Yankees. Fighters. Lost G1 and G4 by 1, Led G5 late. Huh you say? G5? They tied a game because of gate receipts... I mean darkness!
1914 Philadelphia Athletics. Quitters. After scoring to tie it up in the 5th the Braves would take the lead right back and Philly wouldn't get another hit the rest of the game.
1907 Tigers. Bad luck Fighters. Another series with a tie and Mordecai Three Finger Brown dealing for all 9. Tigers put a man on in seven of nine innings. Got men into scoring position in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th but didn't get the hit to drive them in.
*A ridiculously low % in baseball where the worst team in the league against everyone wins like 40% of the time, let alone a league champion.
15 comments:
That 2005 series was more enjoyable than you’d think from the results.
I paused when I saw that stat too, Harper. My first thought was, well it's just 24 games, but 3 for 24 is wild and would let you reject the null hypothesis handily, with a p value under .01. (And that's even for the 40% version, which I agree must vastly overstate the true talent differential outside a very rare edge case involving late injuries or something.)
But I'm also always going to be reluctant to accept the narrative that a team of professional athletes choked. These guys have been selected time and again since they were kids for performance during high pressure situations. Is the world series just so sui generis that none of that history prepares them? In some of the examples you listed, majorities of the team had played in, and even won, previous world series.
That said, I guess I can't think of any better theories. It's just a very strange phenomenon.
I think it’s to do with perception. If you’re looking up at a mountain, and you can see there’s five thousand feet left to climb, it’s a lot harder and more daunting than if you look up and see there’s only five hundred feet left. The next five hundred feet in either case could be just the same difficulty/gradient etc. but the mental challenge quite different in the two cases. So it is in these series. The players are playing one game, sure. They’ve done it before, they know what to do, but the prospect of fighting to win four games in a row versus just the one is obviously much more challenging. Much harder to summon the willpower. And even if the difference is marginal, just a percent or two, that is enough to decide a ballgame between two good teams where the margins are often small to begin with.
I wouldn't say "choked". I do think that, failing under pressure, happens but it's much harder to gauge. Like you say we know facing pressure can effect performance but these guys all faced pressure for years so for who is it really over the tipping point and for who is it just a bad streak?
I was saying "quit". That's harsh by that I mean when down a large margin they can't bring themselves to put the same concentration and effort in. It doesn't have to be every player but a few, down 3-0 and down a couple inning in to that last game, just going with a "screw it" attitude and hoping things work out.
It doesn't have to happen always either. Just enough to tweak that denominator from 24 to a lower number where getting so few G5s might seem more reasonable.
A thing about the 2007 Rockies: I read a Bill James quote somewhere that when he was working for the Red Sox, they figured out that an opposing catcher in the playoffs (he didn't name them) had a tell - when runners were on base, he set up one way for fastballs and another way for breaking pitches. Internet sleuths figured it was against the Rockies in the WS, as the Red Sox hit absurdly well with runners on. I have googled for that but can't find it now.
That's a helpful distinction and that nuance makes sense to me. It also fits in with Anon's comment about how the athletes could be perceiving the task at hand.
I think almost every professional athlete has fought through rehabs and doubts and obstacles before we ever hear of them, so I'd expect a pretty high baseline, but I don't think baseball players are selected for "not quitting" with the same intensity as, say, tennis players. So maybe that is a good explanation for what we're seeing
True or false: Aaron Boone made a Davey Johnson-esque mistake by having Weaver pitch 3 days in a row
It's also odd to me that Judge plays CF (I don't pay much attention to the Yankees and didn't realize Judge plays there). I guess when you have a wRC+ north of 200, that more than makes up for the CF struggles?
Feel for you Harper. Condolences.
I don’t get why they have him in center. If nothing else, the wear and tear of their HOF slugger on a mega contract in CF is not smart for so many reasons
True : though you can't really say they saw Weaver better. He just ran out of gas.
Managers remember - if you are losing G2 throw your best pitcher out then. He'll get rest on the off day and it can keep you from using him 3 days in a row G3-5
He can do it and it's not embarrassing. He wants to do it. They don't have anyone better.
The Yankees are very poor defensively. Not usually like this but in the bad range, poor arms kind of way. Volpe is actually really good and their catchers are solid (Jazz is ok if you count him) but after that it's rough. Judge in center is merely holding it down and is seen as maybe next best with the glove.
I'm over it mostly. Happy to get back now Fire Boone and sign Soto.
It's fiendishly difficult to tell pride, effort, etc., from the outside. At least it is for me. I never assume that a player who is struggling is doing so because they are mentally weak, don't care, have some character flaw, etc. It takes some gall to throw a judgment like that from my recliner as I watch people who can perform at a level that I can only imagine. Does it happen that a player gets overwhelmed by a moment and shuts down/struggles? I'm sure that it does. I just don't know how one tells that from a player/team that just gets beat.
This perspective makes me a poor internet commenter. I'm OK with that.
I appreciate this perspective and I largely agree, but the issue here is that there is an objective fact - teams trailing 3-0 do way worse than they should - that needs explaining. What non-psychological hypothesis is plausible?
By the way, "quitting" as Harper is defining it here is not at all synonymous with a lack of caring or effort. It could equally be caused by trying too hard or caring too much and being too consumed with the shame of failure to play at your best.
Post a Comment