Baseball Notes

One of the local FM radio stations here in Houston is celebrating “Baseball Week” all this week, with baseball-themed interviews (including Jose Canseco and the guy who is auctioning off Barry Bonds’ 762nd home run ball and who sounds like he is perpetually stoned), Astros updates, and other various items. And, God bless ‘em, they are really trying. In fact, on Monday they posted a poll on their website that had the question, how many games will the Astros win this year?

So I figure this will look like most of these things I have seen before and have some options like less than 70, 71-75, 76-80, 81-85, etc. But that is assuredly not what I found. You had four options that looked like this:

1. 0-40
2. 41-80
3. 81-120
4. 121-162

Huh? I mean winning 40 or less or 121 or more - is that even possible? And of course a few real smart folks voted for those top and bottom two, but otherwise it was like 45% for number 2 and 45% for number 3. One of the more scientific polls ever created, if you ask me.

But that got me thinking. What would it really take for the 2008 Astros, or any team, to win 40 or less or 121 or more. So I decided to first look back in history. First, the worst teams in major league baseball history, by number of wins:

1. 1899 Cleveland Spiders - 20 Wins, 134 Losses
2. 1916 Philadelphia Athletics - 36 Wins, 117 Losses
3.  1962 New York Mets - 40 Wins, 120 Losses
4. 2003 Detroit Tigers - 43 Wins, 119 Losses

And now the best teams, by wins, in MLB history:

1. 1906 Chicago Cubs - 116 Wins, 36 Losses
2. 2001 Seattle Mariners - 116 Wins, 46 Losses
3.  1998 New York Yankees - 114 Wins, 48 Losses

Essentially, we have had three teams win 40 or less over a full season (though 2 of those teams played 154 game seasons), and no team has ever reached 120 wins. But I did not want to stop there; I wanted to look at how futile or magnificent a team would have to be to reach these win milestones. First, the 40 win or under plateau.

Using our trusty Pythagenpat formula again, we can work backwards to find out how many runs a team would have to score and allow to only win 40 games.

Winning 40 out of 162 gives you a winning percentage of roughly .250 or 25%. So let’s say for arguments sake you have an average park, pitching staff and defense, and your team allows exactly the average number of runs in a season to their opponents. From 2001-2007, the average runs allowed by a major league team was 768, so we will start with that number.

With the formula being to first solve for the exponent, using: X=((rs+ra)/g)^.285. With X being the exponent, you then calculate rs^X/rs^X+ra^X = Winning Percentage. Working backward, and sparing you the math, a team that allowed 768 runs (thus being an average team in that department) would need to score about 415-420 runs to fall right into that .250 winning percentage.

For some context, no one this decade has had fewer than the 574 runs the Dodgers scored in 2003. So we are talking about more than 150 runs less than that team, assuming an average runs allowed total. 420 runs scored only means 2.59 runs per game. Now I don’t want to steer you in the wrong direction here. In the dead ball era, this number was routinely matched and even bested. Your NL record for fewest runs is 371 by the St. Louis Cardinals, led by the great Red Murray and his .282 batting average and 62 RBI. For the AL, the record for fewest runs is 380 by the 1909 Washington Senators, captained by Bob Unglaub and his .265 average with 41 RBI.

Now for the other side. To win at least 121 games would mean a winning percentage of 75%. We will use our same 768 runs to define our average defense/pitching staff/park. Working backwards, using the same formula as before, we can find that a team that allowed 768 runs over a 162-game season would have to score right at 1300 runs (give or take 10 or so on each side) to equal a .750 winning percentage.

This number certainly is more than any team has ever scored in one season in major league baseball, and would equal more than eight runs per game for 162 games. Although, it doesn’t outpace the historical leaders in runs scored by one team by that much. In the AL, the 1931 New York Yankees (did you think it would be anyone else?) scored 1,067 runs, led of course by Ruth and Gehrig. More surprisingly, in the NL, the 1894 Boston Beaneaters scored 1220 runs, led by an amazing nine players who batted .320 or better - and five of them had better than 100 RBI. Of course that was a different time and game, so just in the context of this decade, no one has scored more than 978, the 2000 Chicago White Sox, still more than 300 runs behind our 121-win team.

So certainly both of these situation are unlikely to happen this season, or in any season in the near future. Seeing what a team would have to achieve to accomplish these makes it seem as though we may not see either happen the way the game is played today.