Is it important to go into the playoffs "hot"?
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 30, 2009 10:22 PM EDT
Email
PrintYou always hear how important it for teams to peak at the right time. But when is the right time? When teams play well down the stretch and continue to play well late into October, you often hear how they got hot when it mattered. When a team plays well in August or September but fall short in the post-season, many will say that team peaked too soon. Let's look at every AL playoff year since 2000 to see whether "hot" teams have an advantage in October.
2000: East - MFY (87-74); Central - White Sox (95-67); West - A's (91-70); WC - Mariners (91-71)
Hottest team: Oakland - The A's were 21-7 in September and won 14 of their final 17 games. Seattle also finished strong, going 19-10 in the final month. The M's won 13 of their last 18 games. 3 of their 5 losses in that stretch were against Oakland.
Coldest team: MFY - The 2000 MFY are a great example of a team backing into the post-season. They were bad in September (13-17) and even worse down the stretch, losing 13 of their final 15 games. They lost their final 7 games of the season, a stretch that included back-to-back sweeps by the two worst teams in the AL East: Baltimore and Tampa Bay.
Playoff Results: ALDS - (Seattle beat Chicago, 3-0; MFY beat Oakland, 3-2) ALCS - (MFY beat Seattle, 4-2)
MFY win WS, 4-1.
2001: East - MFY (95-65); Central - Indians (91-71); West - Mariners (116-46); WC - A's (102-60)
Hottest team: Oakland - The A's were 23-4 after September 1st, winning 14 of their last 17 games. 2 of their final 3 losses were to the Mariners, who also finished the season strong: 19-10 after September 1st, winning 13 of their final 18 games (3 of their final 5 losses came at the hands of the A's).
Coldest team: Cleveland - The Tribe were 15-13 after September 1st, and lost 9 of their final 15 games. Most of the damage was done in October, when they went 2-5. The MFY were 16-9 after September 1st, but didn't enter the playoffs on a roll. They lost 8 of their final 15 games.
Playoff Results: ALDS - (Seattle beat Cleveland, 3-2; MFY beat Oakland, 3-2) ALCS (MFY beat Seattle, 4-1)
MFY lose WS, 3-4
2002: East - MFY (103-58); Central - Twins (94-67); West - A's (103-59); WC - Angels (99-63)
Hottest teams: New York and Oakland - The MFY were 19-8 in the final month, winning 10 of their last 15 games. Oakland was 18-8 and won 11 of their final 15.
Coldest team: Anaheim - While Minnesota had a worse overall record in September, the Twins (9-6 in their final 15 games) finished the season stronger than the Angels (5-8 in their last 13 games).
Playoff Results: ALDS - (Minnesota beat Oakland, 3-2; Anaheim beat MFY, 3-1) ALCS (Anaheim beat Minnesota, 4-1)
Anaheim wins WS, 4-3
2003: East - MFY (101-61); Central - Twins (90-72); West - A's (96-66); WC - Red Sox (95-67)
Hottest team: Minnesota - While all the AL playoff teams finished well in 2003, the Twins were the best down the stretch. Minnesota finished the season 19-7, winning 12 of their final 15 games. The MFY went 18-9 to finish the year, winning 10 of their last 15 games. The Sox and A's were 17-9 and 14-10 respectively. Both teams won 9 of the last 15 games.
Playoff Results: ALDS - (MFY beat Minnesota, 3-1; Boston beat Oakland, 3-2) ALCS (MFY beat Grady Little, 4-3)
MFY lost WS, 2-4
2004: East - MFY (101-61); Central - Twins (92-70); West - Angels (92-70); WC - Red Sox (98-64)
Hottest teams: Boston and New York - The Sox finished 2004 strong. They were 21-11 in September. The MFY were almost as good, going 20-11 in the final month to hold onto first place. Both teams won 9 of their final 15.
Coldest team: Minnesota - The Twins were very good in September (19-12), but dropped 9 of their final 15 in the regular season.
Playoff Results: ALDS - (MFY beat Minnesota, 3-1; Boston beat Anaheim, 3-0) ALCS (Boston beat MFY, 4-3)
Boston wins WS, 4-0
2005: East - MFY (95-67); Central - White Sox (99-63); West - Angels (95-67); WC- Red Sox (95-67)
Hottest team: Los Angeles of Anaheim - While all four teams finished the year playing well, the Angels (21-9) were the best. LA won 13 of their final 15 games.
Playoff Results: ALDS - (Chicago beat Boston, 3-0; LA beat New York, 3-2) ALCS (Chicago beat LA, 4-1)
Chicago won WS, 4-0
2006: East - MFY (97-65); Central - Twins (96-66); West - A's (93-69); WC - Tigers (95-67)
Hottest team: Minnesota - The Twins finished the 2006 season by going 19-11, overtaking the Tigers to win the Central Division. They won 10 of their last 15 games.
Coldest team: Detroit - The Tigers has a losing record in September: 12-16. They lost the division, losing 8 of their last 15 games.
Playoff Results: ALDS (Oakland beat Minnesota, 3-0; Detroit beat MFY, 3-1) ALCS (Detroit beat Minnesota, 4-0)
Detroit lost WS, 1-4
2007: East - Red Sox (96-66); Central - Indians (96-66); West Angels (94-68); WC - MFY (94-68)
Hottest teams: New York and Cleveland - The MFY and Indians won 10 of their final 15 games. The MFY finished September with a 19-8 record and The Tribe were 19-9.
Coldest team: Boston - While the Sox had a better September record than the Angels, LA won 8 of their final 15 games. Boston lost 8 of their final 15.
Playoff Results: ALDS (Cleveland beat MFY, 3-1; Boston beat LA, 3-0) ALCS (Boston beat Cleveland, 4-3)
Boston won WS, 4-0
2008: East - Rays (97-65); Central - White Sox (89-74); West - Angels (100-62); WC - Red Sox (95-67)
Hottest team: Los Angeles - The Angels capped off a 17-9 September by winning 10 of their final 15 games. Both the Red Sox and Tampa Bay won 9 of their last 15, although the Rays had a losing record in September (13-14). The Sox were strong in the final month of the season: 16-10.
Coldest team: Chicago - The White Sox were bad in September (12-15) and even worse down the stretch, losing 9 of their last 15 games. Tampa had a bad final month overall, but finished strong.
Playoff Results: ALDS (Tampa beat Chicago, 3-1; Boston beat LA, 3-1) ALCS (Tampa beat Boston, 4-3)
Tampa lost WS, 1-4
Looking back, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to going into the playoffs "hot". Only in 2004 did the hottest team at the end of the season, the Boston Red Sox, go on to win a championship. The 2000 MFY were one of the worst teams to ever win a WS. Anaheim did not finish the season strong in 2002, but still won it all. In 2006, the Tigers backed into the playoffs and still made it to the WS. Detroit lost to an awful Cardinal team that lost 10 of their final 14 games, and only managed 83 wins for the year.
Regarding this year's Red Sox, they're a hard team to gauge. They've had little to play for in the past couple of weeks. You have to be a bit concerned about Lowell's health and a few of the pitchers. But, they're a pretty solid team overall.
If the Sox lose to the Angels in the ALDS, everyone will point to how the team played down the stretch. If they go deep in the post-season, the same people will laud Tito for resting his players and putting the playoffs ahead of meaningless September games. We'll find out next week.
38 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec'd
Great analysis. I personally dont think being hot or cold matters. A team that wins the final 10 of 12 to win their division is just tired, but might have momentum. This Sox team is rested, but might take a game to get back into the game. Either way, its hard to predict
Fehr is fair, but I like Laich
There are other factors to consider:
-When did the team clinch the division (or WC)? Basically, were they trying (or caring) to win?
-Run differential: are the teams cold, or just unlucky? are they hot, or lucky?
-Are some teams designed better to win in the postseason? I think this is a distinct possibility. If a team has a few excellent pitchers (2 great relievers and 2 ace starters) they would seem to be built for postseason success. The 2000 MFY might be an example of this w/ the pen of Rivera and Nelson and a solid top 3 starters of Clemens, Pettite and El Duque. The fact that they had a shit back end of the rotation does not hurt them in the playoffs.
I think that “momentum” in and of itself is not important. But there are circumstances where end of the season performance could correlate with post-season performance.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
the 07 rockies come to mind
they went on a long winning streak to end the season, then swept the first two playoff series. which makes it that much more impressive that they themselves got swept by the red sox.
by revived0103 on Oct 1, 2009 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Look at the "Not as good as their record shows"
thread for some similar discussion related to “momentum.” The comments by NG are quiet amusing.
I think the Sox will amp it up for the playoffs
Whether that’s enough is an open question.
I feel fairly good about the Angels series. Lackey is often vulnerable to the Sox, and Lester was strong against them last year. Against New York, I’m a little worried. Our starters are better than their’s, but their offense is superior, especially at lefty-friendly Toilet 2.0. The series could come end like this:
ANNOUNCER: "And Game 7 comes down to this: Sox up 14-12 with two outs in the bottom of the 9th. The Yankees’ World Series hopes and dreams rest on the top of the order. Jonathan Papelbon sets and delivers. It’s a fastball outside… and Derek Jeter hits a lazy pop fly… Dustin Pedroia’s heading back, back… He reaches up, and it’s over his head into the second base seats… Yankees pull within 2 runs. Next up is Johnny Damon. Papelbon sets, fires… he jammed him. But the wind’s playing with it, and it’s heading out to shallow right field. HOMERUN! A towering shot into the 30th row. And just like that, we have a tie!
“Next up is Posada, pinch-hitting for Alex Rodriguez, who as you know left the game with a strained ego. Papelbon sets and throws. It’s a high fastball, that Posada gets under a pops up. Jason Varitek is drifting back… back… it’s still high in the air, he should be able to catch it and end the game. And… wait… Steinbrenner’s turned on the wind tunnel again. The ball’s carrying out towards shallow right field. Pedroia’s looking up, up, it’s GONE! THE YANKEES WIN! IT’S A MIRACLE! THE GREATEST SERIES OF ALL TIME!
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
Why can't you do both?
Why can’t you play the regular season out as a good team , and also win in the playoffs as a good team?? Why are we so marginal that it is perceived that athletes in the supposed prime of their life need such rest that the team loses it last 9 games. Arfe we really so old that Wakefield is now our model player?? Geez., not good. Do you really believe such a delicate and old minded team can win in the playoffs and not now? I don’t.
Oh for God's sake.
Could they play in the playoffs and now? Yes. But it’s a widely accepted fact that REST IS GOOD AFTER A HALF YEAR LONG MARATHON.
Have you ever played 162 games over six months?
Have you ever had to do so while crisscrossing the country every few days? No? Then STFU. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Put another way, you know the old adage about how it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your gigantic maw and remove all doubt? Well congratulations — no one here doubts you now!
"Do you really believe such a delicate and old minded team can win in the playoffs and not now?"
Ah damn, he’s figured out that we were just toying with him. Of course, we’re going to get swept by the Halos by a combined score of 38-2, and Rev will praise the Sox as the best opponent they could have faced.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
The 2007 Rockies deserve special notice
I can’t think of any team in baseball history that was hotter going into the World Series, and they got crushed in four games, only one of which was really close.
You have to blame that on the layoff between the NLCS and WS
Then again, if they won, they would have been well-rested and the Sox would have been feeling the affects of a tough ALCS. It’s all so easy to explain in hindsight. We must always strive to choose our sports cliches wisely. :)
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 1, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Championship caliber teams don't care if they have lots of time off or not
They win, and they don’t make excuses. And they always give it 110%, despite the fact that that’s mathematically impossible. And God was in their corner, because everyone know God doesn’t have anything better to do than root for a specific outcome to a game. And anyone who can’t tell the difference between the sound of a ball hitting plywood and the sound of a ball hitting concrete is blind.
Drugs, you never cease to amaze me
Great analysis as always but a part of me thinks you posted this just to illustrate the recent and most enjoyable MFY failures :-)
"You know," Girardi said, shrugging his shoulders, "it didn't work."
( Joe Girardi on pitching to Manny Ramirez with first base open)
I think the pattern is too random and anecdotal
If anything, a team has to play different in the playoffs. One reason that Okajima has been shut down in the past week or so, (I have to look at the last time he pitched) ditto with resting the Mikey Lowells of the world, so the re-occurence of 2008 ALCS won’t happened, if the Sox make it.
The Angels should had won the AL title last year, they were a very good team. However, they couldn’t shift to the playoff mode. When Jason Bay hit that home run in Game 1 of the 2008 ALDS, the Angels just got all verklempt, if that is the right word.
If the Sox and the MFY have an advantage over teams in the provinces, they try not get too down if they are behind. Basically they try to never give up. The only time I have seen the MFY give up was game 7 of the 2004 ALCS, when Damon hit the grand slam and made the score 6-0. I just think they were just worn out.
Much like the Rays almost blew the series last year when they panicked in Game 5 of the 2008 ALCS.
I guess my point isn’t if a team is hot or cold during September, as much as the players can perform in the playoffs. The Yankees for example can only lose if Sabathia just falls apart, the line up acts like it is 2008 instead of 2009. The wind in Yankee Stadium acts like Wrigley Stadium in the autumn, and Phil Hughes acts like Phil Hughes 2008 starting pitcher.
MFY can still be beaten. I think a team like the Twinkies can be a bigger pain in the ass to the MFY than the Tigers, because the Twinkies tend not to panic. However, my guess if it is the TIgers or the Twins, they are going to destroyed by the Yankees. Anything could happened with the Sox and Angels series….
nevermind about my Okajima reference
given he pitched… badly on Sept. 30th… I always feel that Oki is a huge key to stop a rally..
The Angels should had won the AL title last year, they were a very good team.
Were they really?
Here’s how each of the four teams stacked up by W-L record:
Angels – 100-62
Rays – 97-65
Red Sox – 95-67
White Sox – 89-74
Here’s how each of the four teams stacked up by Pythagorean record:
Red Sox – 95-67
Rays – 92-70
White Sox – 89-74
Angels – 88-74
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 4, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Angels and Rays also got great performances from their pen.
Aside from the White Sox, I’d say the teams were nearly equal.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
Bill James doesn't decide who is in the playoffs..
Chicago won 88 games, along with the playoff win against the Twinkies shouldn’t be factor in, even though the Twinkies Pythagorean was 89-74 as well.
The Angels of 2008, was a very good team, except they fell apart when face with one let down. They are not going to play self destructive teams like the 2008 Mariners in the playoffs. They were playing against a smart hitting ball club.
What does that mean?
You can look at a variety of stats to determine which team was better. The more you look at LA last year, the more it becomes apparent that they were a paper tiger last year. The Sox were a better team. The better team won. End of story.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 4, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
The Angels are in a weak division to start with...
I am not dissing the 2008 Sox, they beat the Angels fair and square. What I am trying to emphasize that teams have to looked at the playoffs in a different paradigm.
Using a pythagorean record is interesting, but for teams, what is important is crossing the finish line, no matter how ugly it is, witness the 2006 Cardinals. The Angels made the playoffs, they were a good team. They lost, because they made plenty of mental mistakes throughout the 2008 ALDS. Much like the Sox lost to the Rays in the 2008 ALCS, because they weren’t hitting… With Ellsbury and Varitek the two biggest culprits.
No one said the Angels weren't good last year, just the Sox were better
As for the ALCS, the Sox were hampered by injuries to Beckett, Lowell, Lowrie, etc.
Regarding weak teams like the ‘06 Cards, geography in the form of divisions helps. That’s why it’s important to have a Wild Card—because there are always stronger and weaker divisions. Look at the AL Central this year.
The fact is the playoffs are a crapshoot. It doesn’t matter if teams are hot or cold down the stretch. Once the playoffs start, anything can happen.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 4, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
In fairness, though, the Angels had worse injuries going into the playoffs than we did last year.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
Don't you mean
2007? I recall in 2007 they were beat up. Last year they were, I think, completely healthy. We, on the other had, had significant injuries with Lowrie, Beckett and Lowell.
Really, NG?
Because the Sox lost one series to a very good team? That doesn’t prove anything. There are just as many examples of “cold” teams winning it all as there are of “hot” teams winning.
I expect you to now make this one of your knee-jerk rules, like every year is 2006 and your Seattle rule, both of which have been proved wrong again and again. Enjoy the loss, NG. You must be very happy.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 12, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Empirical versus hopeful
Drugs, I am happy that my empirical assessments of this team were correct, but not that they were as bad as my assessment told me. I look at what you do, and wonder how you feel. You are the classic true fan who always tries to find a good closing excuse even when the empirical obvious is not that way. Maybe I go negative too often, but after 55 years of Yawkey type teams, who can blame me.
Anyway, I still stand behind my argument that empirical assessments of what you see by watching everyday are more important than maybe trying to justify the unjustifiable with some kind of ridiculous stats.
Finally, other than the Cleveland series, I thought the last 6 games with NY and Toronto were very telling and predictive, so don’t tell me it was just one bad series.
by NG on Oct 12, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow, where to start ...
First, NG, your “empirical” assessment are the same from year-to-year. They first start by saying the team will miss the playoffs—just like in 2006. Since you joined the site in 2007, we must conclude that you have been incorrect for three straight years.
I am hardly a optimist. I am a realist, and have been following baseball for a long time. Stats aren’t ridiculous. Many who criticize them simply don’t understand them. They are simply tools for assessing talent. Every good baseball organization uses them.
The one thing you don’t seem to understand. This Sox organization is not the same as the “Yawkey type” Sox you watched for years. Theo Epstein is an excellent GM and Terry Francona is an excellent manager. This team spends it’s money wisely. Since 2003, the Sox have only missed the playoffs once. They have won two championships and came within a game of going to the WS twice. This team is built for the long haul, unlike past Sox teams.
No team is perfect. All teams have flaws. Treating teams that win 95 or so games year in and year out like they are the KC Royals isn’t rational. In a short playoff series, anything can happen. The Angels and Yankees are very good teams. The Sox were tied for the third-best record in baseball this year, despite a lot of injuries.
I won’t tell you the Sox just lost one bad series. But don’t you give me hindsight analysis either. NG, you make the same predictions all the time. Getting lucky once doesn’t make you a baseball expert. There is simply no evidence that how teams play down the stretch indicates how they’ll perform in the postseason. As I wrote at the end of this post:
If the Sox lose to the Angels in the ALDS, everyone will point to how the team played down the stretch. If they go deep in the post-season, the same people will laud Tito for resting his players and putting the playoffs ahead of meaningless September games. We’ll find out next week.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 12, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
NG using empirical assessments = LOL
You’re using actual footlengths to our meters, sir.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Hindsight = you couldn't prove your point, and luck happened to hand you an anecdote.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
He didn't even prove it. He just kept moving the prediction farther into the future.
Done in July.
No, wait, not done but not going to make the playoffs.
Made the playoffs but not going to win the ALDS.
If we had one the ALDS, we would have been lucky, somehow, but wouldn’t have won the ALCS. Unless we did, in which case there was no way we could win the World Series with the team we had.
I have no idea what would have happened if we won the World Series. What happened in ’07?
Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.
I think the logical step would have been to say the Red Sox wouldn't be able to beat the Martian League All Stars.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ask Alex: Will Alex Avila be an All-Star again?
- Create-a-Caption: Matt Cain’s great pair of golf pants
- Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries autographed ball being auctioned by Twins
- George Brett lawsuit claims his company falsely advertises ion necklaces’ health benefits
- Happy Birthday Boy: Remembering Dan Quisenberry
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
