Indian season over?

"So before burying the Indians with more than 95 percent of their season to play, allow us to present a few facts: Over the past 25 full seasons, 45 teams in Major League Baseball have begun their seasons 1-6 or worse. Of those 45, eight have finished the year with a better-than-average record. And of those eight, only one – the 2007 Philadelphia Phillies – made the postseason. In which they were promptly swept."

I always find these things amusing. But on the other hand its not like they are making the stuff up.........

Ask Detroit last year how much they laughed off their bad start.

7 months ago Tdogg 22 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The other side - Why the season might not be over.....

Baseball Analysts take
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/changeup/

"It just occurred to me that the White Sox could win the division."

by SuddenSam on May 22, 2008 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

" That just makes me want to puke all over your head, sir."

by Tdogg on Apr 15, 2009 10:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

as i said in my season preview of the indians, this division appears to lend itself to a team sorting itself out a bit for a couple months.

obviously they can’t continue to play .100 ball and who knows how the records will shake out at the end. but if the division is going to be won around 87ish wins, a shit start can be overcome. but they need lee and carmona to carry a load for awhile.

by larry on Apr 15, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I had them flapping around at the beginning also

but at a certain point shit start just might mean shit team. I know I read somewhere like a 2-10 start (i think) has never made a postseason. They do have Ponson today though. After that its the Yanks this weekend.

"It just occurred to me that the White Sox could win the division."

by SuddenSam on May 22, 2008 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

" That just makes me want to puke all over your head, sir."

by Tdogg on Apr 15, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at the Injuns' apologists

circling the wagons. Keep talking. This was expected. They’ll be fine. It’s a long season. No standouts in the Central.

(Whistles past the graveyard.)

We’re a pack of a-holes.
by rhythm on Apr 14, 2009 1:45 PM EDT

by winningugly on Apr 15, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

like i said, it's lee and carmona.

if they don’t perform well enough, they’re sunk. so far they haven’t.

by larry on Apr 15, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's happened to Carmona? Has he lost stuff (injuries) or was his 2007 season just unsustainably good/lucky?

by CWSKeith on Apr 15, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

both

by larry on Apr 15, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never thought he was as good as 07

I watched him a lot that year and always wondered why the hell people ever swung. More than half of his pitches were out of the strike zone.

"It just occurred to me that the White Sox could win the division."

by SuddenSam on May 22, 2008 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

" That just makes me want to puke all over your head, sir."

by Tdogg on Apr 15, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the indians

seem to be slow starters every year. these are their winning percentages on April 20th (after about 10% of the season) for the last 6 years (the Eric Wedge era) followed by their winning % at season’s end and their % difference in ():

2008: 0.368 / 0.500 (13.2%)
2007: 0.538 / 0.595 (5.7%)
2006: 0.563 / 0.481 (-8.2%)
2005: 0.400 / 0.574 (17.4)
2004: 0.333 / 0.497 (16.4)
2003: 0.385 / 0.420 (+3.5%)

Let’s assume the Indians get hot this week and finish with a 5-7 record on 4/20/09. If they match their average gain under Wedge (+8% – which I’m pretty sure is well above league average over that span) by year’s end, they will still be about an 80-win team this year. Eighty wins won’t even win the tallest midget contest this year. I would definitely bet against the Indians making the playoffs this year.

by Andronicus on Apr 15, 2009 11:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Talk about small sample sizes.

Good effort, though. I’m just not sure you can make that conclusion, especially since every year there are a different # of games played by 4/20. And extrapolating after a 10% representation in 162 games is iffy, too. But I like your thought process.

We’re a pack of a-holes.
by rhythm on Apr 14, 2009 1:45 PM EDT

by winningugly on Apr 15, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

True enough but how do you explain the record of 1-6 teams the rest of the way historically?

"It just occurred to me that the White Sox could win the division."

by SuddenSam on May 22, 2008 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

" That just makes me want to puke all over your head, sir."

by Tdogg on Apr 15, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

God's will?

We’re a pack of a-holes.
by rhythm on Apr 14, 2009 1:45 PM EDT

by winningugly on Apr 15, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the average number of games played by the indians over that 6 year period is exactly 16 (or 9.9% of each season. this year it’s only gonna be 12 (or less if there are more PPD games). i’ll revisit the numbers after they have played 16 games this year just to be a bit more consistent.

by Andronicus on Apr 15, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if similar projections hold up for other teams for the last 6 years

or if it is indigenous to the Injuns.

We’re a pack of a-holes.
by rhythm on Apr 14, 2009 1:45 PM EDT

by winningugly on Apr 15, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

at least under Ozzie

the Sox have a history of fading lately:

2008: 0.611 / 0.546 (-6.5%)
2007: 0.533 / 0.444 (-8.9%)
2006: 0.667 / 0.556 (-11.1%)
2005: 0.733 / 0.611 (-12.2%)
2004: 0.615 / 0.512 (-10.3%)

Avg: -9.8% drop from their 4/20 records. These numbers also seem to be oddly consistent. No doubt small sample size is at play here but I think it may be an indication of the Sox’s age and lack of durability over 162 games. Similarly, I think it’s likely that the Indians’ early struggles over the last few years can be attributed to their younger players contributing much more in the latter stages of the season as they see more ABs and IPs.

by Andronicus on Apr 15, 2009 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would be an interesting study

If you have the time resources.. to look at a larger piece of data, say the first two months / last two months records vs. the average age of a team / position players / pitching staff.

by Grinder in Training on Apr 16, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In Ozzie's defense, though...

four out of those five years were pretty unsustainably good first-halves. If you play .600 ball for a whole season you finish with (just over) 97 wins (not to mention playing .667 ball or — Christ, that team was really good — .733 ball). How many of the Sox teams in the past five years have been ‘true talent’ (however you want to define that) 97 win teams?

Since we’re only talking about five years, too (which you did note), the oddities of one season is capable of putting a decent size dent into the picture. Take 2004, for example — the Sox lose both Maggs and Frank (who were OPSing .836 and .997, respectively) at around the halfway mark.

I’m not completely discounting what you’re saying but it’s got too much uncertainty to hold steady (Hey, that’s the name of an indie rock band!).

by CWSKeith on Apr 17, 2009 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with the sss (small sample size) contention,

but the “unsustainable” piece is, well, unsustainable. I think his point is that no matter what the starting point is re: first half record there is a significant drop-off in performance in the 2nd half. Whether or not you agree with his hypothesis as to why, the Sox seem to have have been a first-half club during the stated period. However, we sure can close (witness ’05 and ’08 last week-of-the-season performances).

We’re a pack of a-holes.
by rhythm on Apr 14, 2009 1:45 PM EDT

by winningugly on Apr 17, 2009 6:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs