Does Homerun Power = World Championship Ring?

by BobZupcic on Mar 1, 2010 3:19 PM EST

You've probably (like me) read the numerous articles, posts, and subsequent reponses regarding the Sox apparent or less-than-apparent lack of power as predicted for the 2010 squad. One specifically interesting quote ran something like - "name me one World Series team that won without a big bopper in their lineup". This led me to look back at the past World Champions (still not sure why its called the World Series, but alas) and see how they ranked in team HR and also ponder the question - "Do you need a "big-homerrun hitter" to win the World Series?" Included in the stats are the number of players with 40+, 30+ and 20+ HR for that season. A player with exactly 30 HR was slotted into the 30+ category, and so on.

** Edited to include the 1980s and a few more comments

Year	Team	Team HR	MLB Rank	40+	30+	20+
2009	Yankees	244	1	0	2	7
2008	Phillies	214	2	1	2	4
2007	Red Sox	166	18	0	1	3
2006	Cardinals	184	12	1	1	3
2005	White Sox	200	5	1	2	4
2004	Red Sox	222	5	2	2	3
2003	Marlins	157	19	0	2	2
2002	Angels	152	23	0	1	3
2001	Diamondbacks	208	8	1	1	2
2000	Yankees	205	10	0	1	3
1999	Yankees	193	13	0	0	3
1998	Yankees	207	7	0	0	4
1997	Marlins	136	22	0	0	2
1996	Yankees	162	16	0	0	2
1995	Braves	168	8	0	0	4
1994	N/A
1993	Blue Jays	159	9	0	1	3
1992	Blue Jays	163	T1	0	1	3
1991	Twins	140	10	0	0	2
1990	Reds	125	14	0	0	2
1989	Athletics	127	T10	0	1	2
1988	Dodgers	99	22	0	0	2
1987	Twins	196	8	0	3	4
1986	Mets	148	13	0	0	2
1985	Royals	154	8	0	2	3
1984	Tigers	187	1	0	1	3
1983	Orioles	168	1	0	1	2
1982	Cardinals	67	26*	0	0	0
1981**	Dodgers	82	8	0	0	0
1980	Phillies	117	11	1	1	1

COMMENTS: I was going to attempt some advanced correlative statistics but I figured the straight numbers were so blatantly obvious is wasn't worth the trouble:

* - The 1982 Cardinals were dead last in team Homerruns and won the World Series.

** - The 1981 year was strike shortened

Only 4 teams who led the league in homers since 1980 have won the World Series - 1983 Orioles, 1984 Tigers, 1992 Blue Jays and the 2009 Yankees.

5 out of 10 teams (50%) since 2000 have won the World Series with only one player over 30 HR. In one case, the 2000 Yankees that player - Bernie Williams had exactly 30.

23 of the 29 (79%) World Series Champs since 1980 had 3 or less players hit 20 HR. That of course includes most of the teams in the pre and post 1987, pre-steroid era but it could be argued that those teams had few "big boppers" even so.

12 of the 29 (41%) teams were worse than 10th place in their leagues in overall Homeruns with 3 more right at 10th place.

The "Bash Brothers" (McGwire and Canseco) hit 30+ HRs each during the seasons of 1987, 1988, 1990 yet only won the WS in 1989 when Canseco was hurt and manged only 17 HR.

Mike Lowell and his 32 HR led the 2003 Marlins

Mike Schmidt of the 1980 Phillies was the only player on his team with over 20 HR with his 48 HR. The second most came from Greg Luzinski with 19.

The Yankees teams of the late 90's consisted of 3 teams (99, 98, 96) without a single player hitting 30 HR or more.

Enjoy,

Tweet Comment 42 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The Boston sports media

as well as the Globe/Herald posters should be rerouted to this page. Good job.

by Buzzy on Mar 1, 2010 3:38 PM EST reply actions

Nice job BZ

Especially that the 1st “fanpost” of steelersfa… is out of my sight ;)

"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur

by radiohix on Mar 1, 2010 4:28 PM EST reply actions

League Leaders

From 2000 – 2007 the team with the most HR in the league failed to even make the playoffs:

2000 – Houston, Toronto was 2nd and also didn’t make it
2001 – Texas, SF was 2nd and also did not make it
2002 – Texas
2003 – Texas, Boston was 2nd and made the playoffs
2004 – Chicago WS, Yankees were tied with Chicago for first and made it
2005 – Texas
2006 – Chicago WS
2007 – Milwaukee

by BobZupcic on Mar 1, 2010 5:07 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Great post, Bob.

rec’ed

by mmmmm on Mar 1, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting stuff, Bob

Good work.

SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow this guy on Twitter: @RCBooth

by Randy Booth on Mar 1, 2010 6:35 PM EST reply actions

+1

by wdogg72 on Mar 7, 2010 11:56 AM EST up reply actions

Good post

I still think we will get adrian Gonzalez this year at some point which would be great and I still hate jd drew lol

by celtsfan1 on Mar 2, 2010 12:14 PM EST via mobile reply actions

????

"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur

by radiohix on Mar 2, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

Sense

The point is ur a sox fan, so am I but Im pretty sure we are gonna need Adrian to fill in for big papi which was the bat and confidence we were lacking last year

by celtsfan1 on Mar 2, 2010 1:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

I wouldn't bet on Gonzalez coming to Boston anytime soon

I can’t see Theo gutting the farm to get a guy who is a couple of years away from a huge payday. I’m not sure Gonzalez wants to fill in for Papi. He’d probably rather play 1B, and Youk is better defensively. Why not just wait until after the 2012 season and just pay money? That way Gonzalez could replace Youk (if the Sox don’t pick up Youk’s option) and Boston could keep their top prospects. You should also remember that other teams might need a 1B and be more willing to part with their prospects than the Sox. I could see Gonzalez in Chicago, playing for the other Sox. Konerko is in the last year of his contract.

Also, I’m not sure the Sox need another bat—and, I’m a big JD Drew fan.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Mar 2, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

Indeed, the ChiSox have said they might be willing to part with Beckham.

We’re not going to top that anytime soon.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Mar 2, 2010 2:41 PM EST up reply actions

I think that was speculation

from what I’ve seen- I don’t think KW actually said he’d do that. Last thing I saw actually was that he didn’t try to pull off a trade for him yet because he thought it would cost Beckham. Still, I’m sure if he was in a deal, they’d get it done.

by wolf9309 on Mar 2, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions

Who knows what the truth is

but I think their comments would be better interpreted as they aren’t willing to trade ‘Bacon’ as Ozzie calls him.

by Salty on Mar 4, 2010 10:04 AM EST up reply actions

well Gonzalez wouldn't be available after 2012

he becomes a FA after 2011- and will be getting something long term after that. I’m not sure that the Sox need Gonzalez either, but I sure would like him- going into 2011 with a corner infield of Youk and Gonzalez would be pretty phenomenal.

But then at the same time, I’d really like for Beltre to stick around Boston for longer than the year. I think there are probably other teams that need Gonzalez more than the Sox do, so they’ll probably bid higher.

by wolf9309 on Mar 2, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

I really don't like Youk at third as we go down the line.

It can be done, but I’d worry about him defensively. Especially when we’d be giving up such a great first baseman.

Of course, we are going to need a DH next year.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Mar 2, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

I meant the 2012 season

Gonzalez is a FA after 2011.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Mar 2, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

ah yes

that makes sense. Although Youk’s option is for 2013, so he’d still be around.

by wolf9309 on Mar 2, 2010 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

But, it's a club option

His contract is up in 2012 if the Sox decline the option.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Mar 2, 2010 7:32 PM EST up reply actions

right, exactly

so if Gonzalez did hit FA after the 2011 season and signed with the Sox, there would be a year of Youk and Gonzalez. Not that I’m saying that’s a bad thing.

by wolf9309 on Mar 2, 2010 8:36 PM EST up reply actions

Except that Youk is better at 1B than Gonzalez

Would Gonzalez DH for a year? I agree with USG. I also don’t like Youk at 3B.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Mar 2, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions

Abraham likes Jayson Werth next year to dodge the prospect and eventual massive FA cost.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Mar 2, 2010 9:59 PM EST up reply actions

Werth won't be cheap either.

But I’d take him.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Mar 2, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions

So Adrian Gonzalez is going to DH?

I dislike the AG stuff almost as much as the “we need a big HR hitter stuff.” Here are some facts:
a)We have a 1b that is basically as good (arguably better than) AG
b)We, at least for now, are set at all positions.
c)AG will cost a shitload of talent that might be more valuable to us (and cheaper) in the near future.
d)AG has awful L/R splits, has had one great year, and has defensive talent that is not uniformly regarded as excellent.

I don’t see why we need AG-if the cards fall as they could, we may have a nearly unique (in the history of baseball) combination of pitching, defense and offense as is. If I were to say we need Joey Votto (who is pretty much as good as AG and younger to boot) would people laugh?

by Buzzy on Mar 2, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

We have no need of Adrian Gonzalez at present. The only way I could see it is if Adrian Beltre isn’t cutting it and is used in a three-way trade. Or something.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Mar 2, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

+1

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Mar 2, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

Well summarized.

Unless something falls drastically through the floor, I just don’t see the need for AG.

by mmmmm on Mar 5, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

I edited the post to include the 1980s and a few more comments

by BobZupcic on Mar 2, 2010 12:31 PM EST reply actions

Currently working on a similar list for Team Runs Scored, Runs Allowed and Differential

You’d be surprised!

by BobZupcic on Mar 2, 2010 3:22 PM EST reply actions

Barry Bonds

Need I say more

by drabidea on Mar 2, 2010 6:55 PM EST reply actions

RS, RA, RunDiff

Here is a table – only going back to 1995 with WS Teams and their respective league rankings that year in Runs Scored, Runs Allowed and Run Differential

Year Team RS Rank RA Rank DIFF Rank
2009 Yankees 915 1 753 14 162 2
2008 Phillies 799 T8 680 5 119 3
2007 Red Sox 867 4 657 1 210 1
2006 Cardinals 781 14 762 10 19 15
2005 White Sox 741 13 645 5 96 7
2004 Red Sox 949 1 768 14 181 2
2003 Marlins 751 17 692 8 59 12
2002 Angels 851 4 644 4 207 1
2001 D’backs 818 7 677 4 141 3
2000 Yankees 871 10 814 12 57 12
1999 Yankees 900 5 731 7 169 3
1998 Yankees 965 1 656 5 309 1
1997 Marlins 740 20 669 4 71 7
1996 Yankees 871 10 787 12 84 8
1995 Braves 645 21 540 1 105 3

by BobZupcic on Mar 3, 2010 12:35 PM EST reply actions

Whoops Table Paste Didn't Work!

I’ll try and get this in another FanPost

by BobZupcic on Mar 3, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions

It looks like the Run Differential Rank is really what matters.

Which agrees with the concept that the team with more runs wins the game. Still, the important point is that it doesn’t matter how you score more runs. It will be interesting to see how the pitching & defense approach works.

"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.

by SoxDevil on Mar 5, 2010 12:39 PM EST up reply actions

I'm thinking inversely - that maybe this shows that HOW you score runs DOES matter

in that maybe it shows us that you are better off having your run differential comes from a broader swath of your lineup than just one or two sluggers.

Combining both this and the OP post, the message seems to be that run differential is important (12 of the 15 WS winners were ranked no lower than 8th and 9 were ranked in the top 3 in run differential.

Yet only 5 of the 15 teams had a 40+ bopper. And indeed, the of the 9 that were in the top-3 in run differential only 3 teams had a 40+ bopper (including the 04 ’Sox who had two, of course).

I suspect that this is telling us that you are better off spreading your run differential out across your lineup. And that makes intuitive sense because across the short span of games that is the playoffs, you are less vulnerable to slumps if you don’t depend on just a few players.

You can spread that run differential across more slots in your lineup in two ways: 1) Spread the offensive money around to get more decent, good (if not necessarily great) hitters so that you get consistent production 1-9. 2) Get good defense at all 8 fielding positions because defense doesn’t slump.

Wow – I just described the 2010 Red Sox …

by mmmmm on Mar 5, 2010 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

Good point re: slumps

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Mar 5, 2010 9:23 PM EST up reply actions

This is great - Nice reality check to go against popular theory

and we all know the one about theory and reality right?

by JonnyNYC on Mar 4, 2010 1:04 PM EST reply actions

hmmm

Seems like leading the league in HRs makes a team more likely to win the world series than not. (4/30 is considerably higher than 1/30).

I see 6 teams in the bottom half of HRs and 24 teams in the top half.

Hitting is important. It’s how you score runs. And you need to score more runs than the other guy does.

I don’t quite get the point of this diary.

The Red Sox would be a better team if they got more power hitting, yes?

by RickD on Mar 6, 2010 7:33 PM EST reply actions

The point is that it's not necessary.

The average rank is 10.6 (a little lower, actually, if you adjust for having fewer teams in previous years), putting them out of the top 3rd.

Obviously a team is better off with more home run hitters than without in a vacuum. But in the real world sacrifices must be made to have that power, and it seems that a well-balanced team will rarely be trumped by a bunch of top sluggers.

Especially questionable is the idea that the Sox will somehow be incapable of winning for lack of a “Jason Bay” type player who will hit 35+. There is little correlation between having the monster slugger and winning.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Mar 6, 2010 9:59 PM EST up reply actions

35 Solo HRs

Would be the same amount of HR’s as 35 grand slams. That’s how I see it. I’d rather have an RBI double than a solo HR any day. The double might not get you on SportsCenter, but putting yourself in scoring position now could make you responsible for 2 runs vs the 1 from a solo jack.

Chicks dig the long ball.
I dig the 6 run rally.

Whoever said it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, probably lost.

by David Harnden on Mar 7, 2010 2:57 AM EST up reply actions

Yes Hitting is Important

I did not imply that it is not important to hit and I’ve generally got nothing against homeruns. What I was conveying is that the homerun is typically overrated when it comes to winning and as a means for scoring those runs. Texas was notrorious for leading the league or being up at the top of the league in homers yet they put up losing seasons. Pitching and Defense have become very much overlooked.

by BobZupcic on Mar 7, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions

Particularly defense.

Despite there being a 160-or-so run difference between the best and worst defenses just using ERA-FIP. Not the most precise stat, but the idea is there.

When you consider how little offense the Sox had to sacrifice to make their defense so much better, it’s ridiculous how underrated it is as a component of the game.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Mar 7, 2010 12:24 PM EST up reply actions