PDA

View Full Version : 23-9 for the Defending Champs is Special


elrod
05-10-2006, 12:54 AM
Here's something interesting to put the 2006 Sox's 23-9 record in perspective. Only 3 teams have ever achieved a record better than 23-9 in the year AFTER winning a World Series. The 1931 Athletics went 24-8, the 1939 Yankees went 26-6, and the 1928 Yankees went 26-6. Three other teams also went 23-9 after winning a title, all of them the Yankees (1950, 1951 and 1942). In other words, it's a great accomplishment to start off a season this good after winning a World Championship. Oh, of those six teams to defend their title with a 23-9 start, 4 repeated as champs (1928 Yankees, 1939 Yankees, 1950 Yankees and 1951 Yankees), and two won the pennant (1931 Athletics and 1942 Yankees). Elite company we're in!

munchman33
05-10-2006, 12:56 AM
Here's something interesting to put the 2006 Sox's 23-9 record in perspective. Only 3 teams have ever achieved a record better than 23-9 in the year AFTER winning a World Series. The 1931 Athletics went 24-8, the 1939 Yankees went 26-6, and the 1928 Yankees went 26-6. Three other teams also went 23-9 after winning a title, all of them the Yankees (1950, 1951 and 1942). In other words, it's a great accomplishment to start off a season this good after winning a World Championship. Oh, of those six teams to defend their title with a 23-9 start, 4 repeated as champs (1928 Yankees, 1939 Yankees, 1950 Yankees and 1951 Yankees), and two won the pennant (1931 Athletics and 1942 Yankees). Elite company we're in!

:hawk
"I love it when you analyze"

MrRoboto83
05-10-2006, 01:21 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/25/Fred_Rodgers.jpg/180px-Fred_Rodgers.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fred_Rodgers.jpg)

"The White Sox are very special in their own way"

gbergman
05-10-2006, 02:41 AM
can i get a picture of the dancing baby from the old blockbuster commercials

cbotnyse
05-10-2006, 07:09 AM
how many wins are we on pace for? and what was our record this time last year?

RedHeadPaleHoser
05-10-2006, 07:14 AM
how many wins are we on pace for? and what was our record this time last year?

The ST has a "watch" from last year, but I don't buy the paper; I read the objective news online.

We're on pace for 709 wins this year, according to BP. But, we have a 31% chance of winning the WS.

Johnny Mostil
05-10-2006, 07:29 AM
how many wins are we on pace for? and what was our record this time last year?

'05 Sox were 24-8 after 32 games. If the Sox were to keep up their current .719 (or .71875) pace, then they would win at least 116 games.

As the final record of the '05 Sox indicates (with a "mere" 99, rather than 121, wins), the first 32 games are only a sample. So--and I admit this is a picky point--if we're going to include teams that did three games better than 23-9 to figure out how defending champs with such a record ultimately do, then we also need to include how team that did three games worse also did.

FWIW, defending champs that won a "mere" 20 of their first 32 include
1930 A's (who repeated)
1943 Cardinals (who won NL pennant)
1958 Braves (who won NL pennant)
1962 Yanks (who repeated)
1972 Pirates (who won NL East)
1975 A's (who won AL West)
1976 Reds (who repeated)
1981 Phillies (who won split-season division title)
1999 Yankees (who repeated).

There are others I'm probably overlooking, but, yeah, things are looking good . . .

EDIT: Whoops, I goofed. An inferential sample including both the '28 Yankees, the '06 White Sox, and appropriate teams doing worse than 23-9 wouldn't include defending champs who won only 20 of their first 32 but those who, statistically, deviated as far below 23-9 as the '28 Yanks did above it. I'm too lazy to figure out the deviations here and the teams they would include. Suffice it to say 23-9 is indeed a good start for a defending champion . . .

elrod
05-10-2006, 09:47 AM
'05 Sox were 24-8 after 32 games. If the Sox were to keep up their current .719 (or .71875) pace, then they would win at least 116 games.

As the final record of the '05 Sox indicates (with a "mere" 99, rather than 121, wins), the first 32 games are only a sample. So--and I admit this is a picky point--if we're going to include teams that did three games better than 23-9 to figure out how defending champs with such a record ultimately do, then we also need to include how team that did three games worse also did.

FWIW, defending champs that won a "mere" 20 of their first 32 include
1930 A's (who repeated)
1943 Cardinals (who won NL pennant)
1958 Braves (who won NL pennant)
1962 Yanks (who repeated)
1972 Pirates (who won NL East)
1975 A's (who won AL West)
1976 Reds (who repeated)
1981 Phillies (who won split-season division title)
1999 Yankees (who repeated).

There are others I'm probably overlooking, but, yeah, things are looking good . . .

EDIT: Whoops, I goofed. An inferential sample including both the '28 Yankees, the '06 White Sox, and appropriate teams doing worse than 23-9 wouldn't include defending champs who won only 20 of their first 32 but those who, statistically, deviated as far below 23-9 as the '28 Yanks did above it. I'm too lazy to figure out the deviations here and the teams they would include. Suffice it to say 23-9 is indeed a good start for a defending champion . . .

Thanks for the follow-up. My point was more to show how rare it was for teams to follow up a World Series victory with a start this good. The fate of those teams that started as well as us was just a bonus!

Hangar18
05-10-2006, 10:18 AM
Here's something interesting to put the 2006 Sox's 23-9 record in perspective. Only 3 teams have ever achieved a record better than 23-9 in the year AFTER winning a World Series. The 1931 Athletics went 24-8, the 1939 Yankees went 26-6, and the 1928 Yankees went 26-6. Three other teams also went 23-9 after winning a title, all of them the Yankees (1950, 1951 and 1942). In other words, it's a great accomplishment to start off a season this good after winning a World Championship. Oh, of those six teams to defend their title with a 23-9 start, 4 repeated as champs (1928 Yankees, 1939 Yankees, 1950 Yankees and 1951 Yankees), and two won the pennant (1931 Athletics and 1942 Yankees). Elite company we're in!

Elite Company Indeed. Nice Work Elrod. Do you realize with that post, youve DONE MORE WORK than anyone in the Chicago Media? Thats more than Mike "yellow" Kiley, Paul Sullivan, Jay Moronotti, WGN, The Trib, The SunTimes? I challenge everyone here to make note of this post and the valuable FACTS it contains because the facts are all researchable and concrete, not just "Well were better" or "We always had more fans" "Were historic"

Johnny Mostil
05-10-2006, 10:34 AM
Thanks for the follow-up. My point was more to show how rare it was for teams to follow up a World Series victory with a start this good. The fate of those teams that started as well as us was just a bonus!

It is an interesting point. Still, I can't get too excited (yet) about what this year's record means for the fate of this year's team because (1) it's early and (2) because some champs manage to improve their record of the previous year but still fall short in the postseason (e.g., '02 D-Backs, '01 Yanks).

The last team to improve its record and repeat as champs was the '53 Yankees (edit). Then again, as every repeat champ since then has shown, you don't need to improve to repeat . . .