You Can’t Build A World Series Champion
Brad Lidge hails the baseball gods after closing out the 2008 World Series and clinching the Phillies' first championship since 1980.For me, one of the fascinating aspects of major league baseball is being able to watch the building process. Like companies, baseball organizations expend great energy in assembling the pieces that comprise their product. Different organizations often use different strategies and tactics to build a winner. Separating the winners from the losers and learning from both provides a great way to develop your own winning strategies for team-building. This post is the first in a series that will be dedicated to exploring what I consider to be a few key principles to building a winning organization.
PRINCIPLE #1 -- BUILD FOR THE LONG HAUL
Since the playoffs were expanded from four teams to eight in 1995, only two teams have been crowned World Champions after finishing the regular season with the best record in baseball (Yankees '98 and Red Sox '07). That is three fewer than the number of teams that won world championships after failing to finish among the top four teams during the regular season (Yankees '00, Diamondbacks '01, Marlins '03, Cards '06, and Phillies '08). Since the turn of the century, World Series championships have been won by teams that ranked 1st (Red Sox '07), 2nd (White Sox '05), 3rd (Red Sox '04), 4th (Angels '02), 5th (Phillies '08), 6th (Diamondbacks '01), 7th (Marlins '03), 9th (Yankees '00), and 13th (Cards '06) in regular season wins.
The last nine World Series champions have an average regular season ranking of 5.6, meaning that on average, there were 5 teams with better regular season records. The lack of correlation between regular season record and world championships is surprising and leads one to grasp for reasons that might explain the discrepancy. Perhaps teams that win championships tend to add key players later in the season so their regular season record is not indicative of how well they are playing when they enter the playoffs. Or perhaps the fact that teams use fewer starting pitchers provides an advantage to teams that have 2-4 exceptional starters. Or perhaps a strong bullpen is a bigger factor in the playoffs than in the regular season. To examine some of these possibilities, I've ranked the last nine World Series champs using eight different measures:
| Team | Season | Last 30 |
Last 10 |
Starters | Ace | Bullpen | Closer | OPS |
| Yankees '00 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
2 (tied) |
5 |
| D-Backs '01 | 6 | 3 (tied) | 3 (tied) | 2 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 6 |
| Angels '02 | 4 | 4 (tied) | 7 (tied) | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 4 |
| Marlins '03 | 7 | 1 (tied) | 1 (tied) | 5 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Red Sox '04 | 3 | 3 | 2 (tied) | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| White Sox '05 | 2 | 6 | 1 (tied) | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| Cardinals '06 |
13 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
| Red Sox '07 | 1 | 5 | 3 (tied) | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Phillies '08 | 5 | 4 | 1 (tied) | 7 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
| Average | 5.6 | 4.7 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4 | 3.3 | 4.9 |
Season = Rank among all MLB teams based upon regular season record
Last 30 = Rank among playoff teams based upon record in final 30 regular season games
Last 10 = Rank among playoff teams based upon record in final 10 regular season games
Starters = Rank among playoff teams based upon regular season ERA+ of top three starting pitchers
Ace = Rank among playoff teams based upon regular season ERA+ of top starting pitcher
Bullpen = Rank among playoff teams based upon regular season ERA+ of top five relief pitchers
Closer = Rank among playoff teams based upon regular season ERA+ of primary closer
OPS = Rank among playoff teams based upon regular season OPS+ of entire team
With the possible exception of having a dominant closer, there appears to be little rhyme or reason to which teams ultimately win the World Series. Understanding why the league's best team often fails to win the World Series can be best understood by considering the odds of a team winning a championship. In a case where all eight playoff teams are evenly matched, then any given team has a 50 percent chance of winning their first-round series, a 25 percent chance of winning their first two series (0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25), and a 12.5 percent chance of winning the three series that result in a championship (0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125).
In a case where one team is clearly superior to the other seven teams and the seeding of the eight teams works ideally, then the odds of the dominant team winning their first-round series might be as high as 80 percent, their second-round series as high as 70 percent, and their third-round series as high as 60%. In this best case scenario, the dominant team has only a 1-in-3 chance of winning the World Series (0.8 x 0.7 x 0.6 = 0.336).
SO, WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?
In a nutshell, championship baseball teams are not built so much as they simply happen. An organization can strive to assemble the best collection of hitters, pitchers, and coaches in a given year and still face the reality that the team is far more likely to end the season with a loss than to end it with champagne. The sad truth is that opponent matchups, hot- and cold-streaks for key as well as bit players, weather, untimely errors, minor injuries, coaching and umpiring mistakes, media attention, family issues, and the baseball gods profoundly affect the outcomes of each playoff series. Because the eventual champion must win three such series, the selection of each year's post-season winner is essentially random.
In the face of a chaotic world where things beyond a team's control disproportionately affect outcome, what can an organization do to improve its chances of winning a championship? The answer to this is simple: Avoid the temptation to make trades or free agent acquisitions designed to create the best team in the league for a one- or two-year window and instead focus on creating a team that can contend for four or five or six years. Recent history suggests that the odds of winning a championship are greater for teams that are perennial contenders than they are for teams that are the best in the league for a one- or two-year stretch. Teams that have won the last ten championships have averaged 4.5 playoff appearances during the past decade.
This analysis causes me to be extremely optimistic about the Rangers organization. Eschewing the flashy trade or free agent acquisition in favor of building a pipeline of talented young players has set the team up to be contenders for the next 6-8 years. Assuming the organization maintains its current path, rest assured that fans of the team will have a better chance of celebrating a championship in the coming decade than any of those teams that are trying to find shortcuts to a title.
4 Comments | in Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (4)
A team has to be one of the best of 162 games to make the playoffs. But it only has to be the best over a dozen or so to win the WS. The Rangers' front office seems to understand this and I feel good about their ability to manage the big picture in that regard.
David, good stuff here, but don't forget my favorite mantra: "Defense, Defense, Defense" -- you should also include the best team defensive rankings available. ERA only tells part of the story. Can you remember many championship teams who didn't flash some pretty good leather? The 2008 Phillies and Rays were probably among the top 4 or 5 defensive teams, right? Who among the '08 playoff teams and other favorites in yrs past suffered in this area?
Also, you might add a "close & late" OPS, or maybe the regular season OPS against other playoff teams. The Rangers for several yrs built up a real healthy OPS against teams who were winning 11-6, and we all know you don't see the other team's best pitching when they are routing you. World champs will score runs when it matters most -- against the other team's best pitching in highly competitive games.
While I am a believer in the need for an Ace to compete in the playoffs, you also surely realize playoff teams rely heavily on their top 3 starters -- how many innings per start did the #1, #2 and #3 rotation members average for the eventual champions?
Lastly, you mention the randomness of performance during the playoffs; can't you measure consistency and potential in some way? Maybe a standard deviation of offensive/pitching output? When two highly-talented teams meet, while the outcome may seem pretty random, I believe the team who can use bat control and team speed has a distinct advantage in close games over a team built on power.
With all that said, however, the Phillies surely would have had a very hard go of it putting away the Rays last yr if Ryan Howard hadn't suddenly regained his Superman abilities at the perfect time. As such, a certain amount of timing and luck obviously figures in. Luckily for the Phils, as you suggest, they have had some pretty good teams over the last few yrs that were able to take advantage of having several opportunities and finally make good on their potential at the right time in 2008.
Again, excellent points made here about the need to give yourself multiple opportunities over the course of 3 to 5 seasons...Stay The Course, Rangers!
An algorithm of averages and rankings in offensive and pitching categories during the reglar season will not produce a reliable correlation to (let alone prediction of) success in the playoffs. Success in baseball is a heuristic. That is why baseball players and executives term the playoffs "the second season."
Good stuff, David -- and to answer your question DiA, the Rays and Phillies ranked atop baseball in UZR in 2008 by quite a large margin (the third-place Athletics were more than 30 runs back of the second-place Phillies, who recorded a +73.5 mark), which obviously jibes with the principles set forth by Nate Silver that the three most important things in the post-season are (a) a good closer, (b) a good defense and (c) a pitching staff capable of striking people out.