Here in Winston-Salem this morning (I think) getting ready for my Bookmarks Festival WHY WE LOVE FOOTBALL event on this lovely Saturday morning, and I only have a couple of minutes, but Friday night’s baseball action does require a few words, I think.
Go White Sox, Go, go White Sox. And then the WhiteSox proved which team in the Central they really favor by beating the Tigers twice after Joe published this and securing the 5th seed for the Royals. I think it is a dubious honor, although the Orioles, given their injuries, are probably a slightly easier opponent in the first round of the playoffs, the Yankees are looming on that side of the bracket for the Royals.
Just an update to shake my finger at the Premature Pundits of Pain (a.k.a. those who pile on before the final outcome). The 2024 White Sox are NOT the worst MLB team of the modern era. They won again today to finish the season 41-121. That means the 40-120 Mets remain the worst MLB team of the modern era. The Sox finished with a winning percentage of .253 versus the Mets' .250. Thus, both finished 80 games under .500 but the first tie breaker is winning percentage. So hoist a toast to the 2024 White Sox. Backs to the wall, they came through.
It is whatever you want it to be. Some people say beginning 1900, others post WWI, others post WWII and others whatever fits into the narrative they wish to discuss. You could make a case for 1893 when the pitchers mound was moved back to 60 feet 6 inches. You could go for 1876 (NL established) or 1901 (AL established). Point is, there are no hard and fast rules. Apparently, most people just focus on number of games lost. That gives two new possible dates for the Modern Era, when the schedule expand to 162 games in 1961 for the AL and 1962 for the NL. I think the way to do it is by winning percentage, so the worst team of all time could be The A's, the Braves or the Mets. It just depends on the date you choose for "Modern Era". Thanks for the info on the A's and Braves.
This Detroit team reminds me a little of the 2011 Tigers. This year they've gone from 55-63 to 86-75 so far: that's a 31-12 run.
In 2011 they went from 61-55 to 95-67, so that was a 34-12 finish. But OK, it was a very different situation, because that finish meant that they won the division by 15 games (the other four teams had losing records). That was Jim Leyland's team: Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer, career years from Alex Avila and Brennan Boesch. They lost the ALCS to Texas.
Baseball statistics are fun but they're often misleading. Team vs team isn't an exception. Teams get hot, they get cold, they have injuries. It's not who you played, it's when you played them.
It's hard not to sympathize with the White Sox. They may well end up with the worst record in modern MLB history. Wait, what? When they lost game 121 every headline I saw kept calling them already the worst team in modern MLB history. For their final two games I will be their biggest fan. Why? If they improbably win those two games they finish 41-121. Let me remind you that in the standings next to the 40-120 Mets, they would finish ahead in terms of winning percentage. Shades of Dewey beats Truman (ironically a Chicago Tribune headline in 1948).
Perhaps it's because the Tigers and Royals are not in New York or LA that what they did went unnoticed? And I don't say that to criticize people like Joe who are on top of things. I mean the big papers and the big networks.
The 2017 Indians went 33-4 to end the regular season, so you’ll excuse me if I’m not overly impressed by the run Detroit is on. Cleveland also made that run to claim the best record in the American League by a game (for what should still be considered the pennant, in my opinion), not one of the extra Wild Card spots MLB would be better without.
That's impressive by Cleveland, no doubt. What makes this much different is that when Cleveland started their hot streak they were 13 games over .500, had a 4.5 game lead in the division, and according to Fangraphs had a 98.9% chance to make the playoffs.
The Tigers, when starting their run, were given a .2%% chance to make the postseason.
The 2011 Cardinals were 8.5 games out of a playoff spot at the start of September, then went 18-8 to make the playoffs.
The only thing that really gives this year's Tigers must distinction is how poor their record was at a low point, but if one is going to make a big thing of that, they should also point out that if MLB hadn't expanded to 12 postseason teams, these Tigers wouldn't have made the postseason, and of course the more postseason teams you allow for, the worse some teams are going to have been in some instances.
Good for the Tigers on not giving up, and on playing really well and taking advantage of the lower bar, I mean that, but the lower bar is a big part of what makes their situation unique.
RE: The list of players who had a 9.0 WAR season before turning 25: Did anyone lose two years to the military besides Willie Mays? I'm curious if he would've had more than two then.
I guess Stan the Man lost one year. Not seeing anyone else on the list who did.
For some reason Joe ignores pitchers - Bob Feller had two 9.0+ WAR seasons before he was 25 and also lost his age 23 and 24 (and 25 and most of 26) seasons to WWII.
I don't think he ignores them, we are just talking about hitters here. Apples to Apples. Unfortunately, though, because of how starters are used now, there probably will not be a pitcher having a year good enough to draw those historical comparisons. It is a counting stat after all.
The last 10 WAR pitcher season was Greinke in 2009, and there may never be another. 9 WAR is Nola and Degrom in 2018. There could be another one of those, but even pitching enough innings for that is becoming a rarity.
About time someone pointed out that the Twins, Royals and Tigers were propped up by the worst time in history.
The Guardians still feel like the team that shouldn’t be winning but keeps winning. I can’t decide whether they will be bounced in ALDS in four straight or roll to a WS win. Could go either way.
Hope they’ll get talked about more, though. Seems like all the discussion was Royals than Tigers on the surprise team of the year. And well earned for both, but the Guardians also beat everyone’s expectations by winning about 20 more games this year than last, and did it without much starting pitching all year.
I’m catching up on Joe’s posts today after embarrassingly posting a comment yesterday about Aaron Judge that had near-complete overlap with what Joe had written the day before in a post I hadn’t yet read (And worst of all, I phrased the comment as bringing up some neglected point. If I had read his post earlier, I would have realized my comment was actually providing “helpful supporting data for Joe’s excellent post yesterday”)
Anyway, reading one from a couple of days ago, and there are lots of good comments about the expanded playoffs. The biggest problem with the playoffs is that it (is designed to) completely supplant the regular season in a way that I think was less true pre-1969. No matter how many byes you give them, the #1 seed could still lose in their first round, and then boom, season over. Or if the #1 seed gets hot in the playoffs and wins the World Series, that still wipes out their regular season, it just replaces it with a great three weeks—which I’m sure any team would be fine with, but it’s different from saying the regular season mattered.
And there’s a way in which giving a bye makes the perception problem worse because then there’s “no excuse” for the top teams to lose. It’s like taking a settlement from an insurance company: “Congrats, you won 111 games, here’s your 1/8 chance at winning the World Series. A lot of other teams only got a 1/16 chance, so consider this your full and just compensation for those 111 wins!”
I sometimes wonder whether making the playoffs *more* random could even help. 16 teams, no byes, 3-game series throughout. Maybe a two-week break after the regular season. Then the regular season “pennant winners” get to bask in that glow before a whirlwind of a playoff adventure that everyone agrees the best teams are likely to lose. Of course, there’s a risk that people would only care about the whirlwind adventure and the regular season would be even more completely devalued, so I should be careful what I wish for!
The closest parallel I can think of to this year’s Tigers is the 2007 Rockies, who after a loss on September 1 were 3 games over .500. They ended up going on a 21-7 run to end the season and winning the wild card, and it kind of came out of nowhere considering they had finished 4th or 5th in their division the past several years.
There are other teams that made similar late season runs into the playoffs - like the 2004 Astros who were 4 games under .500 in mid-August before going on a 36-12 run to end the season - but unlike the Tigers they had been in the playoffs or at least the race for several years already.
Another difference with those teams is they ended up with win totals in the low 90’s. As opposed to, say, the 1986 Reds, who were 5 games under .500 in mid-August before going on a 30-15 run to end up 86-76 - more like this year’s Tigers - but 10 games out instead of playoff bound.
As much as anything, this is the result of 6 teams making the playoffs in each league. This year the AL will have only three teams win 90 games - and none more than 95 - so teams that get to the mid 80’s in wins have a shot.
This is great for Tigers and Royals fans, who haven’t had much to cheer about in years, and I’m happy for them. If one of them gets rolling and knocks out a division winner or two, it won’t be like a 100 win team got bounced so maybe less to be bothered by with that?
Love the article, especially the list of 9 WAR seasons before age 25. 9 WAR really does seem to be the cut-off between the great season and an exceptional one. If you look at through the list of 9 WAR seasons (at any age), almost all of them are great players, with a few career years of very good players sprinkled in. If you look at the list of all players with at least TWO 9 WAR seasons, basically everyone is a Hall-caliber player. In fact, I’d suggest an informal rule that any player with multiple 9 WAR seasons is a presumed Hall of Famer, unless the rest of his career is *seriously* lacking.
Hard to say something new in the space. Yet you always manage to! Thank you! Look forward to the postseason coverage.
Go White Sox, Go, go White Sox. And then the WhiteSox proved which team in the Central they really favor by beating the Tigers twice after Joe published this and securing the 5th seed for the Royals. I think it is a dubious honor, although the Orioles, given their injuries, are probably a slightly easier opponent in the first round of the playoffs, the Yankees are looming on that side of the bracket for the Royals.
Just an update to shake my finger at the Premature Pundits of Pain (a.k.a. those who pile on before the final outcome). The 2024 White Sox are NOT the worst MLB team of the modern era. They won again today to finish the season 41-121. That means the 40-120 Mets remain the worst MLB team of the modern era. The Sox finished with a winning percentage of .253 versus the Mets' .250. Thus, both finished 80 games under .500 but the first tie breaker is winning percentage. So hoist a toast to the 2024 White Sox. Backs to the wall, they came through.
What’s the modern era? The 1916 A’s had a .235 winning percentage. 1935 Braves were .248. Both were worse than the ‘62 Mets.
It is whatever you want it to be. Some people say beginning 1900, others post WWI, others post WWII and others whatever fits into the narrative they wish to discuss. You could make a case for 1893 when the pitchers mound was moved back to 60 feet 6 inches. You could go for 1876 (NL established) or 1901 (AL established). Point is, there are no hard and fast rules. Apparently, most people just focus on number of games lost. That gives two new possible dates for the Modern Era, when the schedule expand to 162 games in 1961 for the AL and 1962 for the NL. I think the way to do it is by winning percentage, so the worst team of all time could be The A's, the Braves or the Mets. It just depends on the date you choose for "Modern Era". Thanks for the info on the A's and Braves.
This Detroit team reminds me a little of the 2011 Tigers. This year they've gone from 55-63 to 86-75 so far: that's a 31-12 run.
In 2011 they went from 61-55 to 95-67, so that was a 34-12 finish. But OK, it was a very different situation, because that finish meant that they won the division by 15 games (the other four teams had losing records). That was Jim Leyland's team: Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer, career years from Alex Avila and Brennan Boesch. They lost the ALCS to Texas.
Hope Bookmarks treated you well. I was sorry I couldn't get out to see you.
I hope you won't decide to write about Wake football. Probably not in the top 10000 reasons to love the sport.
Baseball statistics are fun but they're often misleading. Team vs team isn't an exception. Teams get hot, they get cold, they have injuries. It's not who you played, it's when you played them.
12-1 against Pale Hose, BUT, you still gotta win the ones you're suppose to win, Iris Skinner and Chelsea Baker said so!
It's hard not to sympathize with the White Sox. They may well end up with the worst record in modern MLB history. Wait, what? When they lost game 121 every headline I saw kept calling them already the worst team in modern MLB history. For their final two games I will be their biggest fan. Why? If they improbably win those two games they finish 41-121. Let me remind you that in the standings next to the 40-120 Mets, they would finish ahead in terms of winning percentage. Shades of Dewey beats Truman (ironically a Chicago Tribune headline in 1948).
Perhaps it's because the Tigers and Royals are not in New York or LA that what they did went unnoticed? And I don't say that to criticize people like Joe who are on top of things. I mean the big papers and the big networks.
The 2017 Indians went 33-4 to end the regular season, so you’ll excuse me if I’m not overly impressed by the run Detroit is on. Cleveland also made that run to claim the best record in the American League by a game (for what should still be considered the pennant, in my opinion), not one of the extra Wild Card spots MLB would be better without.
That's impressive by Cleveland, no doubt. What makes this much different is that when Cleveland started their hot streak they were 13 games over .500, had a 4.5 game lead in the division, and according to Fangraphs had a 98.9% chance to make the playoffs.
The Tigers, when starting their run, were given a .2%% chance to make the postseason.
The 2011 Cardinals were 8.5 games out of a playoff spot at the start of September, then went 18-8 to make the playoffs.
The only thing that really gives this year's Tigers must distinction is how poor their record was at a low point, but if one is going to make a big thing of that, they should also point out that if MLB hadn't expanded to 12 postseason teams, these Tigers wouldn't have made the postseason, and of course the more postseason teams you allow for, the worse some teams are going to have been in some instances.
Good for the Tigers on not giving up, and on playing really well and taking advantage of the lower bar, I mean that, but the lower bar is a big part of what makes their situation unique.
Young Reggie was really something, and I wish I had memories of that guy and not of the late-1970s Reggie.
As the joke goes, the Reggie bar was the only one that when you opened it told you how good it was.
RE: The list of players who had a 9.0 WAR season before turning 25: Did anyone lose two years to the military besides Willie Mays? I'm curious if he would've had more than two then.
I guess Stan the Man lost one year. Not seeing anyone else on the list who did.
For some reason Joe ignores pitchers - Bob Feller had two 9.0+ WAR seasons before he was 25 and also lost his age 23 and 24 (and 25 and most of 26) seasons to WWII.
I don't think he ignores them, we are just talking about hitters here. Apples to Apples. Unfortunately, though, because of how starters are used now, there probably will not be a pitcher having a year good enough to draw those historical comparisons. It is a counting stat after all.
The last 10 WAR pitcher season was Greinke in 2009, and there may never be another. 9 WAR is Nola and Degrom in 2018. There could be another one of those, but even pitching enough innings for that is becoming a rarity.
Do you mean besides Ted Williams, who lost 3?
True, but Ted’s third lost year was his age 26 season, so for purposes of discussing under-25 accomplishments it doesn’t apply.
About time someone pointed out that the Twins, Royals and Tigers were propped up by the worst time in history.
The Guardians still feel like the team that shouldn’t be winning but keeps winning. I can’t decide whether they will be bounced in ALDS in four straight or roll to a WS win. Could go either way.
Hope they’ll get talked about more, though. Seems like all the discussion was Royals than Tigers on the surprise team of the year. And well earned for both, but the Guardians also beat everyone’s expectations by winning about 20 more games this year than last, and did it without much starting pitching all year.
I’m catching up on Joe’s posts today after embarrassingly posting a comment yesterday about Aaron Judge that had near-complete overlap with what Joe had written the day before in a post I hadn’t yet read (And worst of all, I phrased the comment as bringing up some neglected point. If I had read his post earlier, I would have realized my comment was actually providing “helpful supporting data for Joe’s excellent post yesterday”)
Anyway, reading one from a couple of days ago, and there are lots of good comments about the expanded playoffs. The biggest problem with the playoffs is that it (is designed to) completely supplant the regular season in a way that I think was less true pre-1969. No matter how many byes you give them, the #1 seed could still lose in their first round, and then boom, season over. Or if the #1 seed gets hot in the playoffs and wins the World Series, that still wipes out their regular season, it just replaces it with a great three weeks—which I’m sure any team would be fine with, but it’s different from saying the regular season mattered.
And there’s a way in which giving a bye makes the perception problem worse because then there’s “no excuse” for the top teams to lose. It’s like taking a settlement from an insurance company: “Congrats, you won 111 games, here’s your 1/8 chance at winning the World Series. A lot of other teams only got a 1/16 chance, so consider this your full and just compensation for those 111 wins!”
I sometimes wonder whether making the playoffs *more* random could even help. 16 teams, no byes, 3-game series throughout. Maybe a two-week break after the regular season. Then the regular season “pennant winners” get to bask in that glow before a whirlwind of a playoff adventure that everyone agrees the best teams are likely to lose. Of course, there’s a risk that people would only care about the whirlwind adventure and the regular season would be even more completely devalued, so I should be careful what I wish for!
The closest parallel I can think of to this year’s Tigers is the 2007 Rockies, who after a loss on September 1 were 3 games over .500. They ended up going on a 21-7 run to end the season and winning the wild card, and it kind of came out of nowhere considering they had finished 4th or 5th in their division the past several years.
There are other teams that made similar late season runs into the playoffs - like the 2004 Astros who were 4 games under .500 in mid-August before going on a 36-12 run to end the season - but unlike the Tigers they had been in the playoffs or at least the race for several years already.
Another difference with those teams is they ended up with win totals in the low 90’s. As opposed to, say, the 1986 Reds, who were 5 games under .500 in mid-August before going on a 30-15 run to end up 86-76 - more like this year’s Tigers - but 10 games out instead of playoff bound.
As much as anything, this is the result of 6 teams making the playoffs in each league. This year the AL will have only three teams win 90 games - and none more than 95 - so teams that get to the mid 80’s in wins have a shot.
This is great for Tigers and Royals fans, who haven’t had much to cheer about in years, and I’m happy for them. If one of them gets rolling and knocks out a division winner or two, it won’t be like a 100 win team got bounced so maybe less to be bothered by with that?
Love the article, especially the list of 9 WAR seasons before age 25. 9 WAR really does seem to be the cut-off between the great season and an exceptional one. If you look at through the list of 9 WAR seasons (at any age), almost all of them are great players, with a few career years of very good players sprinkled in. If you look at the list of all players with at least TWO 9 WAR seasons, basically everyone is a Hall-caliber player. In fact, I’d suggest an informal rule that any player with multiple 9 WAR seasons is a presumed Hall of Famer, unless the rest of his career is *seriously* lacking.