|
How do you know when a team is virtually eliminated? There is a point in a pennant race at which a team has not been technically eliminated, but they’re just not going to win. They’re not dead, they’re as good as dead. Twenty games out in late August. . .you’re not theoretically eliminated, because in theory you could go 40-0 in the closing weeks and the first-place team could go 10-30 and you could beat them by ten games, but it ain’t going to happen. There is a point of no return. What is that point?
I think we all use this phrase sometimes, “virtually eliminated”, but what specifically does it mean? Let’s say that a team is 17 games behind on July 28. Have they been virtually eliminated, or not?
Personal digression. . . .When I was in college sometime in the middle of the last century I developed a formula in my head to determine when the lead was safe and the game was essentially over. It’s been 35 years, and I have never published this, but I still use it. I’ll be watching a game with my wife or my wife and kids, and the Jayhawks will be ahead by 25 points with seven minutes to go, and I’ll turn to my wife and say “the lead is safe.” Or the game will be close, and somebody will hit a 3-pointer with 14 seconds to go, and, in the din of Allen Fieldhouse, I will signal to my wife “that’s it. The lead is safe.” This has a sort of life of its own, its own rituals. Every close game, there will be a point where the Jayhawks get 2 points ahead with eleven minutes to go or something, and I say “The lead is not safe.” Which is a kind of stupid little joke, because it is obvious to anybody that the lead is not safe, so I’m sort of pretending to offer some mock expert insight into the game, when I’m really just stating the obvious. Eventually it gets serious, and we’ll be nine points ahead (or, occasionally, nine points behind) with two minutes to go, and Susie will ask “Is that it?”, meaning, “Is the lead safe?” Which it wouldn’t be, but there is a point there. I’m always figuring. . .the lead is 28% safe, or the lead is 71% safe.
A “safe” lead is a point of no return. Once a lead is safe, it’s permanently safe, even though it is common for the losing team to struggle back over the “safe lead” line for one or two possessions, occasionally more. In a basketball game there are actual consequences to the lead being safe. When the lead is safe. . .normally about 20 seconds after the lead becomes safe. . .the bench players come in, usually on both sides. I have never been to a game at which a team lost a “safe” lead, but I have been to games at which a coach miscalculated when the lead was safe, put in his bench players, and found himself in serious danger of losing the game. If a team gets ten points ahead with 12 minutes to go and then just hangs there, eight to twelve points ahead, then when the clock runs down to about three minutes it feels like it is over, but it isn’t. Ten points ahead with even two minutes to go is nowhere near a safe lead. You hit a couple of threes, it’s 70-66 with 1:40 to go.
I have seen games on TV in which the announcer miscalculated when the lead was safe, and started talking about the consequences of the game’s outcome, only to see the outcome reverse itself. And I did once see a game on television in which a team lost a game after having a safe lead. . .the famous Indianapolis Pacers game a few years ago in which the Pacers, down by 8 points with about ten seconds to go, rallied to win. Reggie Miller hit a three, the Pacers stole the in-bounds pass, Miller drained another three, they stole the in-bounds pass again, tied it up and won the game in overtime. That’s the only game I’ve ever heard of in which a team lost after having a safe lead, and one of the most memorable things I’ve ever seen on TV. A series of events so improbable that one would think it couldn’t happen, but it did.
Anyway, my son has been urging me for years to publish this thing, and I guess I will, during the basketball season. But this is baseball season. It’s late May, 2007, and the Yankees are fourteen and a half behind. We know that this is nowhere near a safe lead, but. . ..what would be a safe lead? Twenty games? Twenty-five? Thirty? When can we stop superstitiously avoiding the entire subject of the Yankees’ problems? I have wanted to have a “safe lead” formula in baseball for 35 years, but until now I have never been able to put the elements together in my head. Now I think I’ve got it. …you ready?
A baseball team is virtually eliminated if the number of games they are behind, squared, is greater than four times their number of games remaining.
To the best of my knowledge, no major league team has ever won the pennant after having been virtually eliminated. There are a number of teams which have walked right up to the line, and come back to win. There are a number of teams which got into a position where if they dropped another two games back, maybe even another one game back, it would have been too late. Let’s review a few of those:
The 1914 Boston Braves, the Miracle Braves, were in last place on July 5. They were 26-40, 15 games out, but rallied to win. 15 squared is 225. The Braves had 88 games left; 88 times 4 is 352. So the Braves were 64% eliminated (225/352) at their worst point, but came back to win. They would have been over the virtual elimination line if they had dropped another 3 ½ back.
The 1934 St. Louis Cardinals were seven games behind on September 6. They were 77-53, while the Giants were 85-47. This was the year that Giants manager Bill Terry made the ultimate bulletin-board crack about the Dodgers, “Brooklyn? Is Brooklyn still in the league?” In the closing weeks the Dodgers made it a point to remind Terry that they were still in the league. The Cardinals (the Gas House Gang, led by 30-game winner Dizzy Dean) were 7 games behind by early August and just hung there for a month, barely moving. At their worst point they were 7 back with 24 to play, which is 51% eliminated (49/96). They would have been virtually eliminated had they dropped another two and a half games behind.
The 1938 Chicago Cubs were 9 games back on August 20, with 44 games to play, and 8 ½ back on August 24, with 39 games to play. That’s a very serious situation for a baseball team, but it’s 46% eliminated. If they had dropped another 3 ½ back, that would have virtually eliminated them.
This was the year of the Homer in the Gloaming. Gabby Hartnett hit an 0-2 pitch into the fog and darkness at Wrigley Field. The umpire ruled it a home run, which put the Cubs in first place on September 28.
The 1951 New York Giants were 13 games out on August 11; they were 59-51. That’s 96% dead (169/176). One more game, one more half-game even, it was time to send flowers. But they won fifteen straight games beginning August 12, went 12-1 in their last 13 regular-season games, caught the Dodgers at the wire and won the playoff on Bobby Thomson’s home run off of Ralph Branca.
The 1962 San Francisco Giants, although it pales by comparison, were 4 games behind on September 22, four games back with seven to play. That’s 57% eliminated (16/28), and one game away from the virtual elimination tripwire. They also caught the Dodgers at the last moment, and won the playoff.
The 1964 St. Louis Cardinals, the first Cardinal team post-Musial, were 39-41 on July 9, eleven games back. That’s only 37% eliminated, but it would get much worse. Although the Cardinals played competitive baseball over the second half they were still 6 ½ games back on September 20, thirteen games remaining to be played. That’s 81% eliminated (42.25/52). A half-game further back would have put them over the virtual elimination line (49/48). Instead, they won 10 of their last 13 games while the Phillies collapsed, and the Cardinals won the World Championship.
The 1969 New York Mets were 10 games behind on August 14, in third place. They were 62-51, while the Cubs were 74-43, the Cardinals 65-52. That’s 51% eliminated (100/196), but the Cardinals were under .500 the rest of the way, while the Cubs almost completely collapsed (18-27 finish), and the Mets wound up beating them by eight full games.
Brief digression. . .the ’69 Cardinals are also a very interesting team, and are particularly relevant to the 2007 Red Sox. The Cardinal front office historically over-reacted to their poor performance down the stretch, and blew up the team, trading away several key performers. They had a nucleus of talent that should have carried them through the 1970s in good shape. Bob Gibson remained a great pitcher until ’72; Steve Carlton became a great pitcher in ’71. Mike Torrez, then 22, and Jerry Reuss, then 20, were both on the team; they would go on to win about 400 games between them, and Reggie Cleveland would have added a few. Joe Torre, who was on the ’69 team, was the MVP in ’71, and was a good player for several years after that. Lou Brock remained a great player until ’76, Tim McCarver played until 1980. Curt Flood retired, but almost certainly would not have retired had he not been traded that winter. The 19-year-old Ted Simmons was on the ’69 team; he would be an outstanding player throughout the 1970s. Willie Montanez and Jose Cruz, both excellent players later on, were then at the higher levels of the Cardinal farm system.
If the Cardinals had just kept their wits about them they probably could have been competitive if not dominant throughout the 1970s. Instead, they misjudged their minor league talent, bet on Joe Hague and Leron Lee to play key roles on the team, tried to move Joe Torre back to catcher, traded away Flood and Montanez that winter and Torrez, Reuss and Steve Carlton over the next couple of years, and just drifted away, spending much of the 1970s arguing with their players about haircuts and travel policies.
This is relevant to the Red Sox, because the 2006 Red Sox also had a very difficult finish to the season, and we could have over-reacted to it. In all candor, had I been the General Manager, I very well might have over-reacted; I was pretty depressed about the way we had played late in the season. Instead, Theo stayed calm and stayed focused, patched up the things that were actually wrong, and the team appears to have come through the crisis in good shape.
The 1978 New York Yankees were 14 games behind on July 19, with 72 games left on the schedule. That’s 68% eliminated (196/288); they could have been written off at that point if they had dropped another three games behind.
The 2006 Minnesota Twins were 10 ½ games behind Detroit on August 7, 51 games left on the schedule. They were 54% eliminated, and were 3 ½ games from touching the third rail. They rallied to win the division.
This is written in late May, 2007, won’t be published for about ten months, so most of you reading this will have the advantage over me; you will know how this race turned out. From our standpoint in the Red Sox front office, any talk about the Yankees being dead, almost dead, diseased, moribund or anything of the sort is crazy talk. Their problems are serious, but with 110 games left in the season, a safe lead would be 21 games. Even leaving the wild card out of it, our lead over the Yankees is less than 50% safe.
Bill James
Brookline, Massachusetts
Late May, 2007
(Ultimately, the Red Sox lead was too large for the Yankees to overcome within the 162 games, although they made a phenomenal run at it. However, another team--the Mets--did have a historic collapse, and the 2007 Phillies must be added to the list of teams which won their division after standing at the threshold of elimination.
At their most dire point, the Phillies were seven games behind with 17 to play. Seven squared is 49; 17 times four is 68, so the Phillies were 72% elimated-- 49/68. Had they dropped one more game behind over the course of the next two days, the Phillies would have been virtually eliminated.
At the moment, the media is focused on the Mets' collapse--but the story of the Colorado Rockies survival, should they win the playoff game later today, is even more remarkable. On September 16 the Rockies were 6 1/2 back with 13 to play--82% eliminated--AND they were in fourth place. They had to get by three teams. As late as September 23, despite having won seven straight games at that time, the Rockies position had actually grown MORE dire. They were now 5 games behind with only 7 to play--89% eliminated--and they were still behind two teams.
What the Rockies have accomplished, should they win the game today, would rank as one of the three or four most remarkable drives into post-season play in the history of baseball.)
|