23-6 (.793 WP%) in one run games - Best in ML history (Please - no Pythagoren stuff)

[CA-ORIOLE]

Our win today and continued success in one run games inspired me to do some research on the subject.

Pretty interesting article from BP last year about winning one run games. I had not realized that the ML record holder (modern) for a single season WP% in one run games was the 1981 Baltimore Orioles (21-7 with a .750 WP%) in a strike shortened season. The 1970 Baltimore Orioles are actually third with a .727 WP%.

1. 1981 Orioles - 21-7 - .750 WP%
2. 1908 Pirates - 33-12 - .733 WP%
3. 1970 Orioles - 40-15 - .727 WP%
4. 1909 Pirates - 33-13 - .717 WP%
5. 1913 Senators - 32-13 - .711 WP%
6. 1954 Indians - 32-13 - .711 WP%
7. 1925 Senators - 27-11 - .711 WP%
8. 1961 Reds - 34-14 - .708 WP%
9. 1940 Reds - 34-24 - .707 WP%
10. 1980 Royals - 29-12 - .707 WP%

We are really heading into uncharted territory with the winning percentage of one run games this season and that fact that we are not a particularly dominant team is even more of a statistical oddity.

See BP article below:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=14619

Most of these teams, with the notable exception of the 1981 Orioles (and, to a lesser degree, the 1913 Senators), were very good.

The most recent of these occurred 30 years ago, in a strike-shortened season. Moving closer to the present day, the best record in one-run games over the past 20 years was 28-12 (.700 WPct) in 2003... by the Giants.

Luck the primary factor?

Tom Ruane and Bill James independently studied team success in one-run games several years ago. Both found that luck was the overriding factor. Quoting from Ruane's 1998 study:http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...les/onerun.htm

...how a team does one year in close games is absolutely no use in predicting how it will do the next. Things like that are usually called "the breaks of the game" or, more succinctly, luck.

And from James' 2002 study:http://207.56.97.150/articles/james_onerun.htm

My conclusion is that winning a lot of one-run games has a persistence of zero (meaning that it appears to be luck) but that losing a lot of one-run games is not necessarily completely meaningless. It's mostly just bad luck, but it doesn't appear to me that it entirely disappears in the following season

Interestingly, the BP study did show that Bruce Bochy was able to manage his teams to a much higher than expected W-L record in one run games over a large span of games. The article concedes there has not been a lot of research on this.
.

Over a career that spans more than 2,600 games, Bochy has gotten teams that otherwise play like 77-win teams to play like 89-win teams in one-run contests.

Though it's been shown that Buck Showalter does not have that track record that rivals Bochy in one run games, perhaps he's captured something this year (and one would have to assume that factor (other than luck) has something to do with BP utilization/performance/leverage.)

Comments?

Again, I would prefer this thread not degrade into another pythageron discussion if at all possible.

[OFFNY]

Pretty interesting article from BP last year about winning one run games. I had not realized that the ML record holder (modern) for a single season WP% in one run games was the 1981 Baltimore Orioles (21-7 with a .750 WP%) in a strike shortened season. The 1970 Baltimore Orioles are actually third with a .727 WP%.

1. 1981 Orioles - 21-7 - .750 WP%
2. 1908 Pirates - 33-12 - .733 WP%
3. 1970 Orioles - 40-15 - .727 WP%
4. 1909 Pirates - 33-13 - .717 WP%
5. 1913 Senators - 32-13 - .711 WP%
6. 1954 Indians - 32-13 - .711 WP%
7. 1925 Senators - 27-11 - .711 WP%
8. 1961 Reds - 34-14 - .708 WP%
9. 1940 Reds - 34-24 - .707 WP%
10. 1980 Roylas - 29-12 - .707 WP%

The 1970 Orioles won the World Series.

The 1940 Reds Won the World Series.

The 1909 Pirates won the World Series.

The 1954 Indians won the Pennant.

The 1925 Senators won the Pennant.

The 1961 Reds won the Pennant.

The 1980 Royals won the Pennant.

************

7 of those 10 teams at least made it to the World Series. That's a pretty nice precedent that we're talking about and dealing with.

[Barnaby Graves]

We're cashing in a lot of karma chips.

[isestrex]

We're cashing in a lot of karma chips.

lol so true... so very true.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The 1970 Orioles won the World Series.

The 1940 Reds Won the World Series.

The 1909 Pirates won the World Series.

The 1954 Indians won the Pennant.

The 1925 Senators won the Pennant.

The 1961 Reds won the Pennant.

The 1980 Royals won the Pennant.

7 of those 10 teams at least made it to the World Series. That's a pretty nice precedent that we're talking about and dealing with.

Right, but unlike us, most of those teams (with the exception of the Senators and their overall .584 WP% and the 1981 Orioles .562 WP%) were very dominant teams with winning percentages generally well into the .600 % level. We are currently around .540 WP%.

[bdlj0887]

I like to think anything "lucky" can be explained somehow, even if the metric needed doesn't exist yet. I don't know if it's possible in this case, and I'm not really sure it even matters.

[Grt 2BA FL Gator]

I was just pondering teams that buy themselves into contention like the Yanks, Angels, Sox, and Tigers.

Obviously, talent wins the day, but there is something to be said about a team. Where guys actually like each other, truly give their all, respect their manager, and believe in themselves and sacrifice for the good of the team.

Gentlemen, the 2012 Baltimore Orioles are a great team. The players respect the heck out of Buck, he gets the best out of them, and they fight tooth and nail for everything they get.

[Pickles]

First, I'm almost positive this thread will descend into a Pythag conversation at some point.

I really don't like the term "luck"; I think "randomness" better captures what we're talking about.

What is really unusual, and something which I didn't realize (though I was well aware of our place in history in regards to 1 run WP% thanks to the recent pythag threads) was how impressive our company is. That's really interesting and makes me think quite a bit. I'm not sure of the implication but there must be something to it.

[OFFNY]

Right, but unlike us, most of those teams (with the exception of the Senators and their overall .584 WP% and the 1981 Orioles .562 WP%) were very dominant teams with winning percentages generally well into the 600 WP% level. We are currently around .540 WP%.

That's OK. We might not win the pennant because we aren't as dominant as those teams were, but the fact that we have a similarly astronomical record in close games as do those teams tells me that we are closer to them than we are to being a bad or a mediocre team, of which we have had nothing but for more than a decade now.

I said in a thread that I started over a month ago that this 2012 Oriole teams reminds me a lot of the 1984 Mets ...... a young, scrappy team that was just coming off a string of consecutive losing seasons (1977-1983) themselves. That Mets team didn't make the playoffs, but they won 90 games, and they began a string of 7 consecutive winning seasons (1984-1990) in which they were a dominant, contending team for almost every one of those seasons (the 1989 team that went 87-75 was the only one of them that didn't win at least 90 games).

That is the direction that I see this Oriole team headed in in 2013 and beyond.

[hoosiers]

This one run luck stuff is bs.

Close games can go either way, I understand.

If our offense were better, we would be winning these games by more than one run. It's not - so instead of winning by 2-4 runs, we win by 1. BFD.

[Grt 2BA FL Gator]

That's OK. We might not win the pennant because we aren't as dominant as those teams were, but the fact that we have a similarly astronomical record in close games as do those teams tells me that we are closer to them than we are to being a bad or a mediocre team, of which we have had nothing but for more than a decade now.

I said in a thread that I started over a month ago that this 2012 Oriole teams reminds me a lot of the 1984 Mets ...... a young, scrappy team that was just coming off a string of consecutive losing seasons (1977-1983) themselves. That Mets team didn't make the playoffs, but they won 90 games, and they began a string of 7 consecutive winning seasons (1984-1990) in which they were a dominant, contending team for almost every one of those seasons (the 1989 team that went 87-75 was the only one of them that didn't win at least 90 games).

That is the direction that I see this Oriole team headed in in 2013 and beyond.

I really see this happening if we can find 5 consistent starters and sign a bat in the offseason. I personally think we'll be looking pretty good starters wise. We have a lot to throw out there and we are finally having some guys step up. The bat is another question. For me, it's either Wieters becomes our other MOO bat, or we go get someone. I personally would rather get someone to take some pressure off, but we'll see.

No doubt things are coming together though..

[CA-ORIOLE]

I really don't like the term "luck"; I think "randomness" better captures what we're talking about.

I'm fine with randomness.

[Larry18]

I would think that Billy Castro is in some way part of the bullpens success. Buck makes the moves but Billy is responsible for making sure the pitchers know the game plan for the batters they are likely to face. Makes Matt's job easier as well.

[SilentJames]

Is there a team that is having a similarly exceptional one-run record, except reversed?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[CA-ORIOLE]

Is there a team that is having a similarly exceptional one-run record, except reversed?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

I don't know the answer to that, but from Jame's study he concluded that losing one run games had more persistance than winning one run games. Winning one run games had basically a zero persistance factor.