PDA

View Full Version : Fast Starts - The Historical Record


elrod
05-09-2005, 08:49 AM
OK folks. I've done my homework and discovered how well teams starting off 24-7 or better have done. Start records are for the first 31 games.

Year Team Start End Place
2005 CHW 24-7 ??? ???
2002 Bos 24-7 93-69 2nd
1998 NYY 24-7 114-48 1st
1988 Oak 24-7 104-58 1st
1984 Det 26-5 104-58 1st
1981 Oak 24-7 64-45 1st
1977 LAD 24-7 98-64 1st
1972 NYM 24-7 83-73 3rd
1958 NYY 25-6 92-62 1st
1955 BRK 25-6 98-55 1st
1946 Bos 25-6 104-50 1st
1945 NYG 24-7 78-74 5th
1939 NYY 25-6 106-45 1st
1931 PHA 24-7 107-45 1st
1928 NYY 25-6 101-53 1st
1921 Pit 25-6 90-63 2nd
1919 CHW 24-7 88-52 1st
1912 NYG 25-6 103-48 1st
1911 Det 26-5 89-65 2nd
1910 PHA 24-7 102-48 1st
1907 NYG 25-6 82-71 4th
1905 NYG 25-6 105-48 1st
1902 Pit 26-5 103-36 1st

Not surprisingly, most of these teams finished in first place. 16 out of the 22 finished in first place, many with dominating records. Only three of these fast starters crashed down to earth: 1972 Mets, 1945 Giants, and 1907 Giants. The 1911 Tigers, 1921 Pirates and 2002 Red Sox didn't crash, but they slowed down enough to be passed.

Make of this what you will. No telling what the future will bring, but a 24-7 start is clearly something special, considering only 22 teams before have done it since 1901.

Hitmen77
05-09-2005, 09:13 AM
OK folks. I've done my homework and discovered how well teams starting off 24-7 or better have done.

...

Make of this what you will. No telling what the future will bring, but a 24-7 start is clearly something special, considering only 22 teams before have done it since 1901.

Thanks for the info! I was wondering when was the last time a team started 24-7. :cool:

stillz
05-09-2005, 09:16 AM
Something special, indeed.. It's been a good spring on the south side.:smile:

Johnny Mostil
05-09-2005, 09:39 AM
OK folks. I've done my homework and discovered how well teams starting off 24-7 or better have done.

Year Team Start End Place
2005 CHW 24-7 ??? ???
2002 Bos 24-7 93-69 2nd
1998 NYY 24-7 114-48 1st
1988 Oak 24-7 104-58 1st
1984 Det 26-5 104-58 1st
1981 Oak 24-7 64-45 1st
1977 LAD 24-7 98-64 1st
1972 NYM 24-7 83-73 3rd
1958 NYY 25-6 92-62 1st
1955 BRK 25-6 98-55 1st
1946 Bos 25-6 104-50 1st
1945 NYG 24-7 78-74 5th
1939 NYY 25-6 106-45 1st
1931 PHA 24-7 107-45 1st
1928 NYY 25-6 101-53 1st
1921 Pit 25-6 90-63 2nd
1919 CHW 24-7 88-52 1st
1912 NYG 25-6 103-48 1st
1911 Det 26-5 89-65 2nd
1910 PHA 24-7 102-48 1st
1907 NYG 25-6 82-71 4th
1905 NYG 25-6 105-48 1st
1902 Pit 26-5 103-36 1st

Not surprisingly, most of these teams finished in first place. 16 out of the 22 finished in first place, many with dominating records. Only three of these fast starters crashed down to earth: 1972 Mets, 1945 Giants, and 1907 Giants. The 1911 Tigers, 1921 Pirates and 2002 Red Sox didn't crash, but they slowed down enough to be passed.

Make of this what you will. No telling what the future will bring, but a 24-7 start is clearly something special, considering only 22 teams before have done it since 1901.

Assuming you want to project a 24-7 record to a season record, you may be skewing the analysis by including teams that started 24-7 or better. If you don't want to calculate deviations here, then you might want to look first at teams that won 24 of their first 31, then those that won 23 or 25, etc.:cool:

elrod
05-09-2005, 09:49 AM
Assuming you want to project a 24-7 record to a season record, you may be skewing the analysis by including teams that started 24-7 or better. If you don't want to calculate deviations here, then you might want to look first at teams that won 24 of their first 31, then those that won 23 or 25, etc.:cool:

Well, I wanted to do two things here. First, to show how rarely a team starts off 24-7 or better. And second, to show that teams that start 24-7 (and the very few that start better) tend to finish with great records. It's irrelevant how a team that starts 23-8 does for either of these issues.

soxtalker
05-09-2005, 09:54 AM
I think that it would be interesting to look a bit further at the teams that did not finish first. I wonder what the post-season analysis of those teams was. Maybe there's a pattern -- injuries, adjustments by the teams that beat them out, etc.

Frater Perdurabo
05-09-2005, 10:09 AM
Didn't that 84 Tigers team actually win their next nine games to push their start to 35-5?

While the 1990 Reds didn't get quite as good of a start, I remember they simply dominated April and then cooled off the rest of the year, then went on another tear at the very end and swept the heavily-favored Athletics in the World Series.

Johnny Mostil
05-09-2005, 10:17 AM
Well, I wanted to do two things here. First, to show how rarely a team starts off 24-7 or better. And second, to show that teams that start 24-7 (and the very few that start better) tend to finish with great records. It's irrelevant how a team that starts 23-8 does for either of these issues.

23-8 teams are irrelevant for your first point, not necessarily your second. By including 24-7 and better, you're assuming the '84 Tigers (26-5, final record of 104-58) are more relevant to the '05 White Sox than the '66 Indians (22-9, final record of 81-81). That may not be right. (It is true a "mere" 22 wins in the first 31 generally leads to a winning record and a postseason appearance; it just doesn't happen as often for teams with 25 and 26 wins in their first 31 games. So, again, by including the 25 and 26 win teams, you're skewing the data. Splitting hairs, I know . . . )

Johnny Mostil
05-09-2005, 10:18 AM
Didn't that 84 Tigers team actually win their next nine games to push their start to 35-5?


Yes, the '84 Tigers were 26-5 but later 35-5.

nasox
05-09-2005, 10:19 AM
OK folks. I've done my homework and discovered how well teams starting off 24-7 or better have done.

Year Team Start End Place
2005 CHW 24-7 ??? ???
2002 Bos 24-7 93-69 2nd
1998 NYY 24-7 114-48 1st
1988 Oak 24-7 104-58 1st
1984 Det 26-5 104-58 1st
1981 Oak 24-7 64-45 1st
1977 LAD 24-7 98-64 1st
1972 NYM 24-7 83-73 3rd
1958 NYY 25-6 92-62 1st
1955 BRK 25-6 98-55 1st
1946 Bos 25-6 104-50 1st
1945 NYG 24-7 78-74 5th
1939 NYY 25-6 106-45 1st
1931 PHA 24-7 107-45 1st
1928 NYY 25-6 101-53 1st
1921 Pit 25-6 90-63 2nd
1919 CHW 24-7 88-52 1st
1912 NYG 25-6 103-48 1st
1911 Det 26-5 89-65 2nd
1910 PHA 24-7 102-48 1st
1907 NYG 25-6 82-71 4th
1905 NYG 25-6 105-48 1st
1902 Pit 26-5 103-36 1st

Not surprisingly, most of these teams finished in first place. 16 out of the 22 finished in first place, many with dominating records. Only three of these fast starters crashed down to earth: 1972 Mets, 1945 Giants, and 1907 Giants. The 1911 Tigers, 1921 Pirates and 2002 Red Sox didn't crash, but they slowed down enough to be passed.

Make of this what you will. No telling what the future will bring, but a 24-7 start is clearly something special, considering only 22 teams before have done it since 1901.

84 Tigers went 35-5

elrod
05-09-2005, 10:20 AM
I think that it would be interesting to look a bit further at the teams that did not finish first. I wonder what the post-season analysis of those teams was. Maybe there's a pattern -- injuries, adjustments by the teams that beat them out, etc.

Regarding the 1972 Mets, the big disaster for them was when Rusty Staub was hit by a pitch on June 2 and broke his hand. He missed three months and the team went into a tailspin. They had the best record in baseball on June 2. Staub led the team in average and home runs at the time.

As for the 1945 Giants, I have no idea. Probably with the end of the war there were lots of returning players throughout the season and so teams' fortunes went way up and down. On May 26 they were 25-7, and then they just collapsed. They got absolutely killed a bunch of times over the next month. There must have been a big injury in there too. They fell back to 42-41 on July 16, which means they went 17-34 after starting 25-7.

I can't say what happened in 1907 either. The Giants really petered out after June but the Cubs caught fire and ran away with it.

elrod
05-09-2005, 10:22 AM
The numbers were for the first 31 games. The Tigers went 35-5, but they started 26-5.

GregoryEtc
05-09-2005, 10:42 AM
I think its also worth noting that the 2001 Seattle Mariners who finished the season with a record 116 wins were 23-8 through their first 31 games.
They lost in the ALCS to the Yankees 4 games to 1.

elrod
05-09-2005, 10:46 AM
I think its also worth noting that the 2001 Seattle Mariners who finished the season with a record 116 wins were 23-8 through their first 31 games.
They lost in the ALCS to the Yankees 4 games to 1.

There were a lot of teams that went 23-8. But only 23 have gone 24-7 or better. And the 2005 White Sox are one of them.

GregoryEtc
05-09-2005, 12:38 PM
There were a lot of teams that went 23-8. But only 23 have gone 24-7 or better. And the 2005 White Sox are one of them.

exactly. my point was that even with all the great teams on that list, think of all the great teams that DIDN'T make the list. this team is truely special.

Lip Man 1
05-09-2005, 12:40 PM
Elrod:

Thanks for the work and congratulations...you've just made the Tribune's blog site.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-blogcurrent,1,1990381.htmlstory?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

Johnny Mostil
05-09-2005, 01:00 PM
I think its also worth noting that the 2001 Seattle Mariners who finished the season with a record 116 wins were 23-8 through their first 31 games.
They lost in the ALCS to the Yankees 4 games to 1.

Wow . . . who knew that 11-3 drubbing they took from the Blue Jays in game 31, dropping them to 23-8, would mean so much?

elrod
05-09-2005, 01:13 PM
Elrod:

Thanks for the work and congratulations...you've just made the Tribune's blog site.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-blogcurrent,1,1990381.htmlstory?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

Wow! I'm famous.:cool:

I was just mulling this over a lot lately and figured that it'd be useful to see how other fast starters did, and how many teams have started as fast as us. I was surprised that so few teams started off 24-7 or better. I was also surprised that only three of the 22 teams really cooled off.

I've got to say this much. I really appreciate how amazing the 1984 Tigers are now. Nobody has ever come close to 35-5 through 40 games. The 1939 Yankees were probably closest, at 33-7.

elrod
05-09-2005, 01:17 PM
Wow . . . who knew that 11-3 drubbing they took from the Blue Jays in game 31, dropping them to 23-8, would mean so much?

No, it was probably the 12-4 schellacking they took from the Red Sox on Game 32... It's amazing they won more than 90 games losing that way.

Johnny Mostil
05-09-2005, 01:21 PM
No, it was probably the 12-4 schellacking they took from the Red Sox on Game 32... It's amazing they won more than 90 games losing that way.

Nah, the rebound started in game 2, when they lost and dropped to .500 . . .

elrod
05-09-2005, 01:26 PM
I still can't get over how a team that wins 116 games doesn't even make it to the World Series. And they almost didn't even make it past a mediocre Cleveland Indians team in the ALDS. I'd have to say the 2001 Mariners are one of the greatest chokers in baseball history. The Yankees just cleaned them up in the ALCS.

Johnny Mostil
05-09-2005, 01:29 PM
I still can't get over how a team that wins 116 games doesn't even make it to the World Series. And they almost didn't even make it past a mediocre Cleveland Indians team in the ALDS. I'd have to say the 2001 Mariners are one of the greatest chokers in baseball history. The Yankees just cleaned them up in the ALCS.

Well, another 116-win team didn't have to get through the playoffs to get to the World Series, but still lost once they got there . . .

elrod
05-09-2005, 01:44 PM
Well, another 116-win team didn't have to get through the playoffs to get to the World Series, but still lost once they got there . . .

True, and that other 116-win team lost 10 fewer games than the Mariners, to boot. So those two are the biggest chokers in baseball history. Well, maybe the 1954 Cleveland Indians, with their 111 wins. Or the 1969 Orioles with their 109 wins.

kojak
05-09-2005, 01:45 PM
Wow! I'm famous.:cool:

I was just mulling this over a lot lately and figured that it'd be useful to see how other fast starters did, and how many teams have started as fast as us. I was surprised that so few teams started off 24-7 or better. I was also surprised that only three of the 22 teams really cooled off.

I've got to say this much. I really appreciate how amazing the 1984 Tigers are now. Nobody has ever come close to 35-5 through 40 games. The 1939 Yankees were probably closest, at 33-7.

After those Tigers hit 35-5, most people figured they were a lock to join the 1928 & 1939 Yankees as the only teams to be playing .800 ball (40-10) after 50 games. But in the middle of a 9 game West Coast swing, the Tigers got swept by the then-lowly Seattle Mariners and came home to lose 2 out of 3 to the Orioles. They ended game 50 at 39-11...

Fenway
05-09-2005, 01:47 PM
ahhhhh they did have to bring up the 2002 Red Sox

AL East


Boston Red Sox (http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/TBOS02002.htm) 31 24 7 .774 -
New York Yankees (http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/TNYA02002.htm) 35 21 14 .600 5.0
Baltimore Orioles (http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/TBAL02002.htm) 34 17 17 .500 8.5
Toronto Blue Jays (http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/TTOR02002.htm) 32 10 22 .312 14.5
Tampa Bay Devil Rays (http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/TTBA02002.htm) 33 9 24 .272 16.0

They finished with 93 wins 10.5 behind NYY and six behind Anaheim who won the WC with 99

With the unbalanced schedule ANYTHING can happen but if CWS keeps playing like this I have to like their chances.

One reason why the Yankees pitching coach is probably going to get fired is the job the White Sox pitching coach has done with Yankees rejects. That has to be driving Steinbrenner crazy.

DSpivack
05-09-2005, 01:50 PM
True, and that other 116-win team lost 10 fewer games than the Mariners, to boot. So those two are the biggest chokers in baseball history. Well, maybe the 1954 Cleveland Indians, with their 111 wins. Or the 1969 Orioles with their 109 wins.

didn't they have the best winning % in baseball history?

NorthlakeTom
05-09-2005, 02:44 PM
After those Tigers hit 35-5, most people figured they were a lock to join the 1928 & 1939 Yankees as the only teams to be playing .800 ball (40-10) after 50 games.
Interesting note about the Yankees. If the Sox duplicate their last 19 games, they will match that 40-10 record.

Johnny Mostil
05-09-2005, 04:17 PM
True, and that other 116-win team lost 10 fewer games than the Mariners, to boot. So those two are the biggest chokers in baseball history. Well, maybe the 1954 Cleveland Indians, with their 111 wins. Or the 1969 Orioles with their 109 wins.

I'm too lazy to look into this further, but you've listed four teams above that won more than 108 games in the regular season (e.g., 109+ in a 162-game schedule). The other four appear to be the Yankee teams of '98, '61, and '27, and the Pirate team of '09. So, win 109+ games, and you only have a 50-50 chance of winning the World Series. Yowza.

Now what I ought to do is check to see how teams that had a record greater than 0.667 did (e.g., at least 103 wins in a 154 game schedule), but I'll let that wait for now . . .