Let’s rephrase that, and give away the ending: the 2010 Tampa Bay Rays are the greatest team in baseball history.
We took a vote among the members of the Royal Order of Baseball Numerators and Youngish wRiters (ROBNYR), and after some heated discussion on the subject, we’re making the call: this year’s incarnation of the Tampa Bay Flat Sharks is the best baseball team ever.
Sure, it’s a little early, but we want to get ahead of the curve on this one. We want to be on that cutting edge that everyone’s talking about.
You can scoff all you want. You can argue that 33 games don’t tell us anything, and say that we’re falling for the small-sample-size. You can accuse us for being overly sensationalistic; for caring more about getting attention than about reporting the fact.
To all that we say: guilty as charged. And: we’re still right about the Rays.
Here’s why:
The Rays, at this writing, have a 23-10 record, and have scored 185 runs while allowing 101. Breaking that down to averages, the Rays have scored 5.6 runs per game, and have allowed 3.1. Their run differential, per game, is 2.5.
You know what would take a lot of time? Trying to figure out where the Rays rank among all teams in major league history in something as obscure as Run Differential.
Here’s where they rank: second.
Only one teams in baseball’s long history has posted a higher Run Differential than the Rays have right now.
Here’s a table of the thirty-eight teams that managed a Run Differential higher than 1.5:
Year
|
Team
|
Run Diff.
|
|
Year
|
Team
|
Run Diff.
|
1939
|
NYY
|
2.7
|
|
1954
|
NYY
|
1.6
|
2010
|
TBR
|
2.5
|
|
1975
|
CIN
|
1.6
|
1927
|
NYY
|
2.4
|
|
1998
|
HOU
|
1.6
|
1936
|
NYY
|
2.2
|
|
1995
|
CLE
|
1.6
|
1937
|
NYY
|
2.0
|
|
1938
|
NYY
|
1.6
|
1931
|
NYY
|
2.0
|
|
1921
|
NYY
|
1.6
|
1942
|
NYY
|
1.9
|
|
1934
|
DET
|
1.6
|
2001
|
SEA
|
1.9
|
|
1910
|
PHA
|
1.5
|
1998
|
NYY
|
1.9
|
|
1974
|
LAD
|
1.5
|
1929
|
PHA
|
1.9
|
|
1998
|
ATL
|
1.5
|
1932
|
NYY
|
1.8
|
|
1947
|
NYY
|
1.5
|
1912
|
BOS
|
1.7
|
|
2001
|
OAK
|
1.5
|
1953
|
NYY
|
1.7
|
|
1931
|
PHA
|
1.5
|
1948
|
CLE
|
1.7
|
|
1948
|
NYY
|
1.5
|
1911
|
PHA
|
1.7
|
|
1956
|
NYY
|
1.5
|
1935
|
DET
|
1.7
|
|
1922
|
SLB
|
1.5
|
1953
|
BRO
|
1.7
|
|
1949
|
BRO
|
1.5
|
1954
|
CLE
|
1.6
|
|
1949
|
BOS
|
1.5
|
1969
|
BAL
|
1.6
|
|
1932
|
PHA
|
1.5
|
That’s not a great table…we’ll get to the harder numbers later. I just want to take a minute to point out a few things.
First: you know these teams. Actually, you know this team: fifteen of the thirty-eight teams are incarnations of those damned Yankees.
And you know the other clubs, too. Most of you could name the big players on the 1929 Philadelphia A’s, or the 1969 Orioles, or the 1954 Indians, or the 1934 Tigers, or the 1975 Reds, or the 1998 Astros. The 1922 St. Louis Browns are probably the most unknown team on the list. That was George Sisler’s .420 year.
The point is, these are the really good teams. And the Rays are ahead of ‘em.
Let’s Do Some Math
Here are the top ten teams in run differential:
Year
|
Team
|
Runs Scored
|
Runs Allowed
|
Run Differential
|
1939
|
NYY
|
6.4
|
3.7
|
2.7
|
2010
|
TBR
|
5.6
|
3.1
|
2.5
|
1927
|
NYY
|
6.3
|
3.9
|
2.4
|
1936
|
NYY
|
6.9
|
4.7
|
2.2
|
1937
|
NYY
|
6.2
|
4.3
|
2.0
|
1931
|
NYY
|
6.9
|
4.9
|
2.0
|
1942
|
NYY
|
5.2
|
3.3
|
1.9
|
2001
|
SEA
|
5.7
|
3.9
|
1.9
|
1998
|
NYY
|
6.0
|
4.0
|
1.9
|
1929
|
PHA
|
6.0
|
4.1
|
1.9
|
(Just a quick note: sometimes the math doesn’t seem to add up: the 1937 Yankees scored 6.2 runs per game and allowed 4.3, but their run differential is 2.0, not 1.9. It’s a rounding numbers thing: the 6.2 is a rounded number, as is the 4.3, but the difference is closer to 2.0 than 1.9).
The Rays are stuck between the 1939 and 1927 Yankees…the 1927 Yankees are a super-famous team: that was Gehrig’s first big season, and Ruth’s 60-homer year...the Yankee outfielders hit .356, .356, and .337, and the team’s catcher, Pat Collins, had an on-base percentage over .400…the team could hit. They blew out the Pirates in four games.
The 1939 Yankees are a little less famous: that was the year Gehrig retired, and the big stars were DiMaggio, Dickey, and Joe Gordon. But a lot of guys had career years for the 1939 club: Red Rolfe posted a .329/.404/.495 season, and George Selkirk walked 102 times with an OPS+ of 148. Charlie Keller got a chance to play: in 111 games he hit .334/.447/.500. Oh yeah: the Yanks swept the Reds in the World Series. Ho-hum.
Actually, a lot of the top-ten teams in run differential are Ruth/Gehrig or Gehrig/DiMaggio or DiMaggio Yankee teams: you have 1927, 1931, 1936, 1937, 1939, and 1942 on the list. There’s also the 1929 Athletics.
Just a quick observation: high offense eras have teams with higher run differentials. Also: smaller leagues are more likely to have teams with high run differentials. Here’s a table:
Decade
|
# of Teams
|
1900's
|
0
|
1910's
|
3
|
1920's
|
4
|
1930's
|
10
|
1940's
|
6
|
1950's
|
5
|
1960's
|
1
|
1970's
|
2
|
1980's
|
0
|
1990's
|
4
|
2000's
|
2
|
2010's
|
1*
|
The 1930’s had a ton of teams with high run differentials. So did the 1940’s…except for the year wars. Of the six teams with high run differentials during the 1940’s, none played during seasons. (The full list: 1942, 1947, and 1948 Yankees, 1948 Indians, 1949 Dodgers, and 1949 Red Sox.)
In contrast, there were no teams with high run differentials in the pitching-heavy 1960’s, not until they lowered the mound in 1969. There were two teams in the 1970’s, none in the 1980’s. There were four in the 1990’s: one in 1995 and three in 1998.
You probably suspected as much…the more overall runs your team scores and allows, the better chance you have at posting a high run differential.
I think we can all agree that the very best teams in baseball history didn’t all pop up during in the 1930’s. The Yankees had some great teams back then, but I think we’d all like to make room for other teams. Like the 1998 Yankees. Or, um, the 1956 Yankees.
So we should adjust things a bit. One easy way to adjust for contexts is to compare a team’s run differential with that team’s total runs. Taking the 1948 Cleveland Indians:
Year
|
Team
|
RS
|
RA
|
Run Diff.
|
Total Runs
|
Run Diff/Total Runs
|
1948
|
CLE
|
5.4
|
3.6
|
1.7
|
9.0
|
18.9%
|
The Indians, winners of 97 regular-season games, scored 5.4 runs per game. They allowed 3.6 runs per game, which gives them a run differential of 1.7 runs per game. Their total runs, in a typical 1948 Cleveland Indians game, was 9.0…1.7 divided by 9.0 gets us 18.9%...the Run Differential of the Indians was about 18.9% of their overall runs.
So let’s adjust the 38 teams by setting their run differential against overall runs. Does that mix things up a little better?
Year
|
Team
|
RS
|
RA
|
Run Diff.
|
Total Runs
|
Run Diff/Total Runs
|
2010
|
TBR
|
5.6
|
3.1
|
2.5
|
8.7
|
28.7%
|
1939
|
NYY
|
6.4
|
3.7
|
2.7
|
10.1
|
26.7%
|
1927
|
NYY
|
6.3
|
3.9
|
2.4
|
10.2
|
23.5%
|
1942
|
NYY
|
5.2
|
3.3
|
1.9
|
8.5
|
22.4%
|
1910
|
PHA
|
4.3
|
2.9
|
1.5
|
7.2
|
20.8%
|
1954
|
CLE
|
4.8
|
3.2
|
1.6
|
8
|
20.0%
|
1969
|
BAL
|
4.8
|
3.2
|
1.6
|
8
|
20.0%
|
2001
|
SEA
|
5.7
|
3.9
|
1.9
|
9.6
|
19.8%
|
1912
|
BOS
|
5.2
|
3.5
|
1.7
|
8.7
|
19.5%
|
1953
|
NYY
|
5.3
|
3.6
|
1.7
|
8.9
|
19.1%
|
1937
|
NYY
|
6.2
|
4.3
|
2.0
|
10.5
|
19.0%
|
1998
|
NYY
|
6.0
|
4.0
|
1.9
|
10
|
19.0%
|
1936
|
NYY
|
6.9
|
4.7
|
2.2
|
11.6
|
19.0%
|
1948
|
CLE
|
5.4
|
3.6
|
1.7
|
9
|
18.9%
|
1929
|
PHA
|
6.0
|
4.1
|
1.9
|
10.1
|
18.8%
|
1954
|
NYY
|
5.2
|
3.6
|
1.6
|
8.8
|
18.2%
|
1975
|
CIN
|
5.2
|
3.6
|
1.6
|
8.8
|
18.2%
|
1974
|
LAD
|
4.9
|
3.5
|
1.5
|
8.4
|
17.9%
|
1911
|
PHA
|
5.7
|
4.0
|
1.7
|
9.7
|
17.5%
|
1998
|
HOU
|
5.4
|
3.8
|
1.6
|
9.2
|
17.4%
|
1998
|
ATL
|
5.1
|
3.6
|
1.5
|
8.7
|
17.2%
|
1947
|
NYY
|
5.1
|
3.7
|
1.5
|
8.8
|
17.0%
|
1931
|
NYY
|
6.9
|
4.9
|
2.0
|
11.8
|
16.9%
|
1932
|
NYY
|
6.4
|
4.6
|
1.8
|
11
|
16.4%
|
1935
|
DET
|
6.0
|
4.4
|
1.7
|
10.4
|
16.3%
|
1953
|
BRO
|
6.2
|
4.4
|
1.7
|
10.6
|
16.0%
|
1995
|
CLE
|
5.8
|
4.2
|
1.6
|
10
|
16.0%
|
2001
|
OAK
|
5.5
|
4.0
|
1.5
|
9.5
|
15.8%
|
1931
|
PHA
|
5.6
|
4.1
|
1.5
|
9.7
|
15.5%
|
1948
|
NYY
|
5.6
|
4.1
|
1.5
|
9.7
|
15.5%
|
1956
|
NYY
|
5.6
|
4.1
|
1.5
|
9.7
|
15.5%
|
1922
|
SLB
|
5.6
|
4.2
|
1.5
|
9.8
|
15.3%
|
1949
|
BRO
|
5.6
|
4.2
|
1.5
|
9.8
|
15.3%
|
1938
|
NYY
|
6.2
|
4.5
|
1.6
|
10.7
|
15.0%
|
1949
|
BOS
|
5.8
|
4.3
|
1.5
|
10.1
|
14.9%
|
1921
|
NYY
|
6.2
|
4.6
|
1.6
|
10.8
|
14.8%
|
1934
|
DET
|
6.2
|
4.6
|
1.6
|
10.8
|
14.8%
|
1932
|
PHA
|
6.4
|
4.9
|
1.5
|
11.3
|
13.3%
|
This is a better list: among the top-ten teams, eight different decades are represented. The 1939 and 1927 Yankees still do quite well, but the 1931, 1936 and 1937 Yankees drop down on the board.
Here are the top-ten teams, by raw and adjusted Run Differentials:
|
Raw Run Differential
|
Adjusted Run Differential
|
1.
|
1939 Yankees
|
2010 Rays
|
2.
|
2010 Rays
|
1939 Yankees
|
3.
|
1927 Yankees
|
1927 Yankees
|
4.
|
1936 Yankees
|
1942 Yankees
|
5.
|
1937 Yankees
|
1910 Athletics
|
6.
|
1931 Yankees
|
1954 Indians
|
7.
|
1942 Yankees
|
1969 Orioles
|
8.
|
2001 Mariners
|
2001 Mariners
|
9.
|
1998 Yankees
|
1912 Red Sox
|
10.
|
1929 Athletics
|
1953 Yankees
|
The first list has a bunch of teams from the late 1920’s to the early 1940’s….it also gives the Yankees seven of the ten best teams ever.
On the adjusted list, the 1931, 1936, and 1937 Yankees drop off, as do the 1998 Yankees (they’re still at #12 on the list). The 1929 A’s also fall off the list.
Rising up are the 1910 Athletics (Collins, Baker, and a terrific pitching staff), the 1954 Indians (111 wins), the 1969 Orioles, and the 1912 Red Sox (Smoky Joe Woods’ amazing year). We also get the 1953 Yankees: it’s nice to see a Berra/Mantle team on the list.
The adjusted top-ten list drops off four slugging Yankee teams and a slugging A’s team, and gives us five teams with really great pitching …that’s a nice change of pace. The scales are more balanced.
And: the 2010 Rays are now on top.
Will They Stay on Top?
We’re being really premature about this: it’s mid-May right now, and while the Rays are playing like a house on fire, we’re a long way to the finish line.
Still, there are reasons to be optimistic:
-Carlos Pena, the #5 guy in the batting order, is hitting .183, with an on-base percentage of .312 and a slugging percentage of .357. Those numbers will almost certainly improve.
-B.J. Upton is hitting .218. That will probably go up.
-Ben Zobrist, coming off an MVP-caliber season in 2009, has an on-base percentage of .347…that will probably go up.
-Jason Bartlett, the leadoff hitter, has an on-base percentage of .329. Sorry if you’ve heard this before, but that will probably go up.
-The Rays have gotten little production from DH, and little production from catcher Dioner Navarro.
To sum things up: the #1, #3, #5, #6, and #7 players in the Rays regular lineup are playing below their abilities…and the Rays are second in baseball in runs scored. So their offense should improve.
On the other hand, the Tampa Bay pitchers are going to decline some. Don’t get me wrong: I think the Rays have some talented arms. But it’s unlikely that Price, Garza, and Niemann will all finish with sub-.300 ERA in 2010. Unlikely, but not impossible.
So it’s possible that, as a whole, the Rays will fall back a little bit.
And: it doesn’t matter. They’re still the best team in baseball history. The Rays have run the table while playing a weighted schedule that forced them to compete against the Yankees and Red Sox, in a superior league, at a time when baseball is a helluva lot tougher than it was in 1910, or 1940, or 1970. No other team on the list has as many contextual elements going against their dominance as the 2010 Rays do.
So we’re calling it. The 2010 Rays are the best ever.
Dave Fleming is a writer living in Chicago, IL. He welcomes comments, questions, and tithes to the Royal Order here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com.