AZ Snakepit: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Steve McNair Dead - Former NFL QB Shot and Killed


Over-achievers, and proud of it

The 2007 Diamondbacks made it to the playoffs, despite conceding more runs than they scored. While not uncommon, it's actually far from unique; the increased size of the post-season makes it a great deal more likely now, when eight of 30 teams reach the playoffs, than it used to be. Until 1980, only four of 26 saw October action, and before 1968, there was just the World Series, so 90% of outfits missed out. It's thus no surprise to learn that all the successes with negative run-differentials have come in the past 25 years. I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the five such cases, and see how they did it, what the results were - and perhaps most importantly, what happened to them the following season.

1984: Kansas City
Record: 84-78, 1st in AL West [+4 over Pythag]
Run Differential: -14 (672-686)
Playoffs: Swept in ALCS by Detroit
Next season: +7, World Series Champions

Much like this year's Diamondbacks, the '84 Royals were not an offensive force: they averaged only 4.15 runs/game, 11th of 14 in the American League, and the entire team had just 117 homers, in a largely-neutral park. First-baseman Steve Balboni had the best OPS (.818), and led the team with 28 homers, but K'd 139 times. DH's Hal McRae and Jorge Orta, as well as 3B George Brett, also performed well. Their pitching was only mediocre, a 3.92 ERA only seventh-best. Bud Black anchored the rotation, going 17-12 with a 3.12 ERA, and got valuable support from Charlie Leibrandt (11-7, 3.63) and Dan Quisenberry, who saved 44 games.

The team was a first-half flop, having a 31-40 record on June 27, and were still five games back of Minnesota as late as August 25. But KC went on a bit of a tear, winning 15 of the next 22, and clinched after Game #160. Like Arizona, they had a good record in one-run games (26-21), contrasting with a poor one in blowouts (13-21), and also benefited from a very solid bullpen, which posted a 3.24 ERA, fourth-best in the league. They were mauled by the World Series-winning Tigers in the post-season, scoring only four runs over three games, but stormed back the following year. They improved by seven games, outperforming Pythagoras by five, then won both the ALCS and 1985 World Series in seven.

1987: Minnesota
Record: 85-77, 1st in AL West [+6 over Pythag]
Run Differential: -20 (786-806)
Playoffs: World Series Champions
Next season: +6, 2nd in AL West

The Twins were middling with the bat, despite the Metrodome proving to be a fairly hitter-friendly environment - the team OPS of .756 was almost on the league average, .758. Three players (Kent Hrbek, Gary Gaetti and Tom Brunansky) reached 30 homers each, and Kirby Puckett batted .332 to finish fourth in the league, but the team couldn't take a walk, managing a meagre 3.23 per game. Lefty Frank Viola was the team ace, going 17-10, with an ERA of 2.90, though he and Bert Blyleven were the only starters with winning records. Jeff Reardon had 31 saves, but the bullpen was generally weak, its ERA (5.11) surpassed only by the Boston 'pen that year. Their one-run record was only just positive (24-22), but they suffered no less than 31 losses by 5+ runs.

Regardless, the team was never worse than tied for first from June 9 on. They clinched with five games left - then promptly lost those last five. However, the Twins beat the Tigers for the AL pennant, and clinched the World Series at the Metrodome, beating the Cardinals in Game Seven: MVP Viola got the win, and Puckett hit .357 for the series. The team improved by six games in 1988 to 91-71 [+1 over Pythag], but lost out, by some way, to the 104 wins posted by the A's. As a result, Minnesota failed to make the playoffs, despite having the second-best record in the American League, and fourth-best in the majors.

1997: San Francisco
Record: 90-72, 1st in NL West [+10 over Pythag]
Run Differential: -9 (784-793)
Playoffs: Swept in NLDS by Florida
Next season: -1, 2nd in NL West

San Francisco did hit, posting an OPS+ of 105, behind Bonds .291 with 40 HR; J.T. Snow was another lynch-pin, playing 156 games at first and batting .281, credible figures in 3Com Park. However, their pitching was weaker, an ERA+ of 93, despite Shawn Estes going 19-5 with an ERA of 3.18. Kirk Rueter (13-6, 3.45) was also very solid on the mound. By coincidence, I note that then-rookie Keith Foulke started eight games for the Giants that year, before being traded to the White Sox and becoming a closer - probably wise, since his ERA as a starter was 8.26.

If the team had a defining moment, it was likely the September 18 game against LA. The Giants won in twelve innings: their closer, the late Rod Beck, hurled three shutout innings before catcher Brian Johnson swatted a walk-off homer off the first pitch. That tied the teams for first, and the Giants won seven of their last ten. Overall, they were 23-17 in one-run games, and 18-23 in blowouts. However, that record deserted them in the NLDS, where they lost the first two games by one ninth-inning run to Florida, on the way to getting swept. Despite improving their run differential to +106 the next season, they won one fewer game and finished 9.5 back of San Diego.

2005: San Diego
Record: 82-80, 1st in NL West [+5 over Pythag]
Run Differential: -42 (684-726)
Playoffs: Swept in NLDS by St. Louis
Next season: +6, Lost NLDS 3-1 to St. Louis

Were the 2005 Padres the worst-ever playoff team? Mustering only 82 wins, and being soundly outscored, their offense wasn't actually bad - once you took the cavernous confines of Petco into account, the team OPS+ was 103, with a solid outfield of Ryan Klesko (110), Dave Roberts (112) and Brian Giles (146), overcoming the black hole which was Sean Burroughs (70). However, their pitching was awful; among their five most-regular starters, only Jake Peavy had an ERA+ better than 90. Somehow, they led from May 26 (the Padres went a monstrous 22-6 that month) until the season end, save July 31 when we tied them for one night.

A large part of this were the relief corps, who were bank. Trevor Hoffman (44 saves) and Scott Linebrink (1.83 ERA in 73.2 IP), were crucial in boosting San Diego to a 29-20 record in one-run games, and led the 'pen to a 3.49 ERA, beaten only by St. Louis. And, funnily enough, that's what happened to the Padres too. Their starters allowed 15 earned runs in ten NLDS innings, and they never led in a single inning as the Cardinals blew them away. The 2006 version suffered a very similar fate, losing the NLDS to the same opponents, but improved by six games to 88-74, two better than Pythagoras.

2007: Arizona
Record: 90-72, 1st in NL West [+11 over Pythag]
Run Differential: -20 (712-732)
Playoffs: Swept in NLCS by Colorado
Next season: ???

The good news is, looking at the above teams, the average change the following season is a gain of 4.5 games. Half of them followed up with another playoff trip, and the 1988 Twins can consider themselves somewhat unlucky not to have made it three of four. The teams do also tend to outperform Pythagoras again the next season, though since we're talking a very small sample size, I am not claiming this as evidence that this is necessarily some kind of repeatable skill. Mind you, under Bob Melvin, this team is now +19 over three years, and the 2005 roster has few survivors from it still present, so I am beginning to wonder.

The general theme is one we know: win the close games, lose the blowouts. Merely for amusement, I thought it might be fun to see which of the previous four Pythagoras-slayers we most closely resembled. Here are the most obvious attributes of the 2007 Diamondbacks;

  • Weak offense: =15th in OPS+
  • Solid relief pitching; 7th in NL
  • Excellent in one-run games: +12 [32-20]
  • Awful in blowouts: -6 [20-26]
  • Young team: average 27.3 years old

And here's how our ancestors stacked up in these areas. The final column is simply the sum of the differences from Arizona, across the five categories.

          Off  Bull  1-Run  Blow  Age   TOT
2007 AZ   =15    7    +12    -6  27.3    0
2005 SD    =6    2     +9    -2  31.0   24.7
1997 SF     5   11     +6    -5  29.2   22.9
1987 MN    =8   12     +2    -9  29.6   27.3
1984 KC    =7    4     +1    +5  28.3   34.0

This suggests we most closely resemble the 1997 Giants, with a side-order of the 2005 Padres; given what happened the following season, I was hoping to find us matching the 1984 Royals, but it was not to be. This does, however, hardly count as a scientific assessment, and further analysis would seem merited...by someone with more time on their hands than I! ;-)

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Obvious attribute
Only listing the bullpen as an obvious attribute is selling short the starting pitchers that threw 958 (2nd most NL, 8th most MLB) of the 1441 innings pitched last year (66.5%), posted a collective 4.23 ERA (3rd best NL, 6th best MLB) and allowed only 489 total runs (=4th best NL, =5th best MLB).
Bob Melvin Sucks

by nihil67 on Jan 15, 2008 10:26 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

OT
Jim should be pleased to hear this, but from my informal survey, Cloverfield is getting okay reviews so far.

(Note: My informal survey consisted solely of reading that review from AICN. It's got a 56% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, out of a whopping 9 reviews)

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 16, 2008 4:16 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Seems to divide the reviewers
Now up to 7-7. Very polarized so far, everything from "A combination of unpleasantness and stupidity that would be difficult to match" to "An intense and engaging monster movie that may very well breathe life back into a dead genre." Is it possible to be both?

Friday evening will tell...

by Jim McLennan on Jan 16, 2008 11:37 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The trouble of reviewers
There is no movie that is so good that someone won't complain about it, and there is no movie so terrible that someone won't tell you how wonderful it is.
I'm not superstitious- it's bad luck.

by kishi on Jan 17, 2008 1:17 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Speaking as someone...
Who honestly prefers Showgirls to Schindler's List, I know what you mean. Am I the only person who really does not want to see Juno? [Even though the young actress in it was excellent in Hard Candy] About all you can hope to do is find a reviewer whose tastes align relatively closely with yours. I used to be a big fan of Peter Sobczynski, one of the few critics to 'get' Ultraviolet, but the recent slagging he inflicted on Notes on a Scandal has left me a bit disillusioned.

by Jim McLennan on Jan 17, 2008 1:45 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Up higher today
Cloverfield is up to 70%, certified "Fresh". (Out of 23 reviews)

My sister's intown for a medical procedure tomorrow. Thinking I might take her to see it this weekend.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 17, 2008 10:21 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I saw Juno
and I can't recommend it.  Everyone and their mother seems to like this movie, but I felt it was plotless, overly written, and shallow.  There's not really a whole lot of reason to the movie unless you like obscure (and not so obscure) pop-culture references, snark, indie-music, and...pregnant teenagers?  Ew.

Of course, I may not be the best judge of films for people; my favorite movie of 2007 was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so what do I know?

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Jan 17, 2008 9:11 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Don't even get me started
On just how bad I Am Legend is... :mad:

by Wimb on Jan 17, 2008 7:25 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Movies
There hasn't been a movie made worth watching since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in 2004 (The only exception is Serenity, which did come out in 2005.  Joss Whedon is the cure.).  American cinema died in the late 90's.  

Think of all the money you'll save when you stop handing over $8-$10 a person to see worthless drivel.  I imagine that I've saved thousands of dollars.  My wife and I haven't been to a movie theater in almost 3 years (Batman Begins, which I figured was a perfect end to my support of the industry).

</rant>

Bob Melvin Sucks

by nihil67 on Jan 17, 2008 9:55 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I thought...
...that Little Miss Sunshine was good, and I really really liked 3:10 To Yuma, even though I'm not a huge Western buff. Letters From Iwo Jima was fantastic, too.

I found Eternal Sunshine quite pretentious. Definitely not a fan. Then again, maybe it cut too closely to home. I don't like Jim Carrey, either.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 17, 2008 10:16 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sunshine
Little Miss Sunshine was too pointless and a little overwritten for me.  Most people don't like Jim Carey (I think he's brilliant... I keep meaning to see The Number 23), but I'm surprised that you'd be more receptive to Steve Carell.  He's a total hack.
Bob Melvin Sucks

by nihil67 on Jan 17, 2008 10:42 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I really like black, black comedy
and LMS was certainly that.

I don't like Jim Carrey because of his annoying comedy roles and the obnoxious ways he uses his face. I like Steve Carell a lot, especially in The Office.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 17, 2008 11:46 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Jim Carey
I couldn't have said it better.  His idea of "high comedy" is making stupid faces.  I've hated the guy intensely since In Living Color.  Never have understood how the guy makes money.

As for movies, I rarely go to the theater.  The last movie I saw in a theater was Serenity.  Before that, it was probably the last Star Trek flick.  Most movies I like look just fine on a small screen.  I can't see laying out the cash on top of finding someone to watch the kids & all that.  Much easier to go the Netflix route.

by azshadowwalker on Jan 19, 2008 4:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's not been good of late...
I can only think of a couple of American films since then that might have a shot at making it into my revised Top 50: Sin City, Children of Men (kinda America, I think), and perhaps Borat. Otherwise, very slack. We're certainly going to the cinemas a lot less: really, only for truly "cinematic" experiences like 300. Most of the time, we're happy to wait for stuff to appear on cable: I think most of the DVDs we bought last year were from the dollar store. :-)

by Jim McLennan on Jan 17, 2008 10:56 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My wife likes the movie theatre
So we go once a month or so. She usually picks the movies, and they usually suck. But I love her, so I tag along.  ;)

For me, I like seeing "big picture" events at Cine Capri, on the huge screen with the best sound system. There really is no replacement for that when it comes to certain movies.  I'm more than willing to put up with the masses for that.

Other times, we just go to the theatre at the Indian Bend  Pavillions mall. It's a crappy little theatre, but nobody ever goes there, and you usually  have about 6-8 people watching the movie with you if you avoid Fri-Sat nights.  So it's pretty unobtrusive.

Lately though, I've found that if I include a good backrub and agree to do all the kitchen cleanup after dinner, my wife is more than willing to watch a DVD at home.

 

by shoewizard on Jan 19, 2008 5:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Juice team
Number 23 is horrible...HORRIBLE!!  Don't do it "nihil."  I beg you!  

Anyway, came across this funny (at least to me) article on all-time juice mlb team.  Pretty in-depth too.  Some great ballplayers on that list.  They would be DOMINANT as a real team! haha

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/01/16/all-time-teams-the-all-juiced-team/

by ET90210 on Jan 17, 2008 11:17 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

New user?
Welcome!
Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 17, 2008 11:48 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And conversely
The All-Clean Team. Be interesting to see the two face off in a pseudo-World Series... I'll leave that one up to those with Strat-o-Matic, I guess!

by Jim McLennan on Jan 17, 2008 11:27 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm bored
Can't wait until spring training games start.  I can listen at work and it makes the day go by faster.

by Just Me on Jan 17, 2008 6:30 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the AZ SnakePit, the SB Nation blog about the Arizona Diamondbacks. Summer in Phoenix: "Would you like to sit on the porch? Or would you rather live?" -- Eddie Izzard.
Start posting about the Diamondbacks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

63797e89c433_small
With Byrnes out...And Young ehhhhh
Square-watermelon_small
Why are TC and Byrnes still playing?
Square-watermelon_small
Trade Qualls?
Not_batman_small
Tucson Snakepit Meetup?
Rfc_small
A little help from my friends... (D-Backs Fancast)
Small
OT 4th of July Wallpaper
Ztjinwtp_small
One positive to this dismal season
Picture_3_small
Lopez wants to stay in Arizona
Beartato-cheerupface_small
Diamondbacks 0, Royals 5: Complete Embarrassment
Small
Dbacks Draft Breakdown Show

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Manager

Mrsnakepit_small Jim McLennan

Bench coaches

Me_-_sp_studio_small snakecharmer

Gadsden_small DbacksSkins

Players

Image-00002301_small kishi

Meow2_small Azreous

Romy3_small soco

Mlp_small dahlian

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports