Looking at a one run chart because of this article, the Marlins have played 39 one run games, almost 40% of their games. The Dodgers are the low at 16. The Cubs have played 15 extra inning game (and have lost most of them) Oakland and Detroit have 3 each.
I think blown saves are more relevant than 1 run games. At least those seem to hurt the worst, compared to being down by 5 fighting back and only losing by 1.
I don't know if all blown saves count. They give out blown saves for giving up a tying run in the 7th. 9th inning turnarounds are rough though. You go in with the lead and come out with the loss. A walk off loss if on the road.
One thing I'd like to know is how many of these (Texas and the other teams) are really 1 run games?
By 1 run, I mean that the game was close all the way (never more than 1 run ahead or behind) and not a case of a team leading 5-1 at some point and the other team scoring 3 runs to make it 5-4 and so you get credit for a 1 run win (or loss depending on whether you won or lost that game).
Obvious 1-0 games are 1 run games and 2-1 games are quite likely to be true 1 run games too. But as you get into the 4-3, 5-4, 6-5 games etc there is a chance quite a few of those were simply games where a team made it close.
Assuming a 50% chance to win a 1-run game (that may not be a fair assumption but based on what Joe wrote it's probably close), the chance of having a 5-23 record (or worse) in 28 such games is 0.0456%, or about 1 in 2,200 times... which makes sense (Rangers are worst all time - that is in 120+ seasons, with 16-30 teams per season). Indeed, incredible, but should happen once in a century. I'm just happy (and shocked) it's not my beloved Mets!!
I suspect (but haven't seen the numbers) that the zombie runner rule has increased the chances of an extra-inning game being decided by exactly one run. Are the Rangers uniquely bad add moving their zombie runner around and/or uniquely bad at keeping the opposing zombie runner from scoring? Note that three of the top 5 worst one-run game winning percentages in the 21st century happened in the zombie runner era...
Joe, my question is: When do you sleep? You do research, write books, schedule speaking engagements, and still have time to crank out multiple articles each week and still write books. Incredible.
Joe, after going down the rabbit hole chasing after a punctuation mark, I think the ? after Buck Gladmon's name appears to be not about whether he played for them or not, but what his actual name was as it appears a couple different ways in the box scores.
As a Rangers fan I’d like to think that I’ve become impervious to pain since the team had suffered so much of it in their sordid existence (see my sad Rangers fan Rainbow Dash profile pic).
I could swear this is the baseball gods providing payback for their 2016 season when they went 36-11 in one-run games, allowing them to clinch the number one seed in the AL with 95 wins despite a +8 run differential. Then they got swept by the Wild Card Blue Jays, who had a +93 run differential despite just 89 wins.
Sports are such a puzzle. An incredible amount of skill is required to just play, let alone succeed or star, at the professional level. When analytics are added in, one might (wrongly) conclude that the chance or luck variable has more or less been eliminated. What makes sports so intriguing is that luck, good or bad, continues to play an important role. Another great read. Thanks, Joe.
There's nowhere near enough respect and recognition for the Mariners all-star first baseman, Ty Law.
Looking at a one run chart because of this article, the Marlins have played 39 one run games, almost 40% of their games. The Dodgers are the low at 16. The Cubs have played 15 extra inning game (and have lost most of them) Oakland and Detroit have 3 each.
I think blown saves are more relevant than 1 run games. At least those seem to hurt the worst, compared to being down by 5 fighting back and only losing by 1.
I don't know if all blown saves count. They give out blown saves for giving up a tying run in the 7th. 9th inning turnarounds are rough though. You go in with the lead and come out with the loss. A walk off loss if on the road.
One thing I'd like to know is how many of these (Texas and the other teams) are really 1 run games?
By 1 run, I mean that the game was close all the way (never more than 1 run ahead or behind) and not a case of a team leading 5-1 at some point and the other team scoring 3 runs to make it 5-4 and so you get credit for a 1 run win (or loss depending on whether you won or lost that game).
Obvious 1-0 games are 1 run games and 2-1 games are quite likely to be true 1 run games too. But as you get into the 4-3, 5-4, 6-5 games etc there is a chance quite a few of those were simply games where a team made it close.
Assuming a 50% chance to win a 1-run game (that may not be a fair assumption but based on what Joe wrote it's probably close), the chance of having a 5-23 record (or worse) in 28 such games is 0.0456%, or about 1 in 2,200 times... which makes sense (Rangers are worst all time - that is in 120+ seasons, with 16-30 teams per season). Indeed, incredible, but should happen once in a century. I'm just happy (and shocked) it's not my beloved Mets!!
A sluggish start is a bad thing for a slugger to have. Words are funny.
I suspect (but haven't seen the numbers) that the zombie runner rule has increased the chances of an extra-inning game being decided by exactly one run. Are the Rangers uniquely bad add moving their zombie runner around and/or uniquely bad at keeping the opposing zombie runner from scoring? Note that three of the top 5 worst one-run game winning percentages in the 21st century happened in the zombie runner era...
The Rangers are only 4-7 in extras. 7 of those have been 1 run games, and they are 2-5 in those. That means they are 3-18 in regulation 1 runs games.
On the bright side, Texas is in good hands with the All-State Tournament.
Joe, my question is: When do you sleep? You do research, write books, schedule speaking engagements, and still have time to crank out multiple articles each week and still write books. Incredible.
Joe, after going down the rabbit hole chasing after a punctuation mark, I think the ? after Buck Gladmon's name appears to be not about whether he played for them or not, but what his actual name was as it appears a couple different ways in the box scores.
The question mark is because they don't know if he was a lefty or a righty.
It literally says that in the key below both the pitchers and hitters:
* - throws left-handed, # - throws both, else - throws right, ? - unknown
* - bats left-handed, # - bats both, else - bats right, ? - unknown
As a Rangers fan I’d like to think that I’ve become impervious to pain since the team had suffered so much of it in their sordid existence (see my sad Rangers fan Rainbow Dash profile pic).
I could swear this is the baseball gods providing payback for their 2016 season when they went 36-11 in one-run games, allowing them to clinch the number one seed in the AL with 95 wins despite a +8 run differential. Then they got swept by the Wild Card Blue Jays, who had a +93 run differential despite just 89 wins.
Sports are such a puzzle. An incredible amount of skill is required to just play, let alone succeed or star, at the professional level. When analytics are added in, one might (wrongly) conclude that the chance or luck variable has more or less been eliminated. What makes sports so intriguing is that luck, good or bad, continues to play an important role. Another great read. Thanks, Joe.