Printable View
Who are the 3 teams to win the most games ??
& equally the 3 to lose the most ?
Please note that this does not mean the 3 best teams nor the 3 worst BECAUSE of alignnment (ie if you believe the 3 best teams are,for example,Tampa,Boston & the Yankees there is NO chance they will have the 3 best records because of inter division play & vice versa for weak divisions which will over value wins)
BEST (none of which crack 100 wins) ......Boston/Tampa/Cubs ---- the latter because of how bad Houston & Pirates are!
WORST ----- Florida/Washington/San Diego ---- yep 3 NL teams but all 3 have such weak lineups for 1 reason or another
I don't think there's no chance that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays have the 3 best records. They weren't that far off from doing it this year. If I had to guess at this point, I think I'd pick those 3 teams for the best, and for the worst...the Padres, Nationals, and Pirates.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Actually HGM it is MATHEMATICALLY impossible unless O's & Jays win 52.3 games each WHICH btw has never in MLB history been achieved ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You have an odd definition of mathematically impossible...divisional opponents only make up, what, a quarter of the schedule...you may want to run your math again FRSQuote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
unlikely =/= mathematically impossible
Matematically unlikely if you prefer ;) but IMPOSSIBLE based on past results :p & they make up in the AL East for those 3 teams (v one another) 22.2% of games played thus an inherent ratio of 5 of affected results ie likelyhood of equality amongst themselves resulting in a "need" for a 71.93% win factor in the remaining games against NON CONTENDERS (or a 116 win season 'run' for all 3 teams in a "perfect world" scenario --- if one remembers that Seattle are the only team to EVER achieve that level & that was ONCE)Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
I do prefer :pQuote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
The Yankees, Rays, Blue Jays, and Red Sox each won 86+ games this year. I don't see how it's mathematically impossible for the Yankees, Rays, and Red Sox to have the top 3 records in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
The Angels are going to be in for a rude awakening this year. I think the AL West will be taken by 85 or so wins...and roughly the same goes for the AL Central. The talent is heavily stocked in the AL East, and the Big 3 are going to beat up on the other two divisions, plus the Orioles and Jays. Yes, they have to play each other as well, but, so?
Angels 100-62
Tampa 97-65
Chicago 97-65
Boston 95-67
Philadelphia 92-70
Milwaukee 90-72
Yankees/Mets 89-73
The 3 AL East teams were in the top 7 in 2008. The Angels, barring a miracle, are going to drop below that. A portion of their losses divvied up between Tampa, Boston, and New York. Milwaukee, also, is unlikely to reach 90 wins. That puts the 3 AL East teams in the top 5, assuming Chicago and Philadelphia repeat their performances. Is it really that hard to see them coming out 1-2-3? I don't think so.
The 3 best teams are The Red Sox, Tampa Bay and the Cubs and for the 3 worst I would probably say the Pirates, San Diego and Nationals. FRS how do you think the Marlins are one of the worst teams :confused:
The Yankees are better than the Cubs and have a strong argument for being better than both the Red Sox and Rays, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
;) numbers just dont bear out your analysis the EQ ratio calculated for the 3 to have the best record in baseball is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000091% because THEY have to play one another so often whereas the Angel plays the 3 9 times & plays Texas the double for example .Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Gonna have to go Boston, New York and Tampa for the top three (though not necessarily in that order). I really don't see another team in the league, aside from maybe the Cubs, that holds a candle to the big three in the AL East right now.
Bottom three I'll say Seattle, Pittsburgh and Washington.
I don't know what that is, but, the probability of 3 of the top 7 teams in 2008, each of whom are likely to be better teams in 2009, having the top 3 records in 2009 being so low just doesn't pass the smell test.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Assume each of the 3 goes 9-9 against each other (a not improbable outcome). In the other 144 games, 88-56, a .611 winning percentage, would be needed to win 97 games. I can easily see each of those teams doing it.
While I concede is more unlikely than likely, I think you're greatly overstating it's improbability.
PLEASE read the first Post !! Not the 3 best or worst teams BUT the 3 best/worst records ---- for example Cubs have to "beat" up on Pirates/Astros & Mets the Marlins/Nationals..............whereas you rightly point out that the AL East is a "beast" thus "reducing" EACH team's chances of "cheap wins"......:rolleyes::eek:;):DQuote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
Do the Maths NOT A "smell test" :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
& btw 9 -9 means 18 wins in 36 games (as they play 2 contenders NOT 1)thus
82 wins over 126 games (82-44) thus a .651 record or 105+ win season in a EQ world WHICH has never HAPPENED ever in 3 division world ;)
Only 3 times 3 teams have won 100+ games - 1998, 2002, and 2003. & never EVER has it happened with 2 teams in the same division let alone 3! (SO even my prediction I am going out on a limb with 2)
And considering the sheer strength of the Rays, Yankees, and Red Sox, and I don't think that's a outlandish possibility. If any of those teams were in either the AL West or AL Central, they'd surpass 105 wins, I think with ease. Being in the same division as each other prevents them each from having a crazy season in terms of wins, but does not prevent them from beating up on the rest of the league and posting the 3 best records.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I think that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays will easily have the top 3 records in the American League, and it won't be a contest. Expand it to the MLB, and my guess would be that they'll still be the top 3, and yes, it does become more unlikely, but the only real challenger the NL has is the Cubs.
I don't think the 3 teams will be win 100+ games, nor have I said anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Nope but to OBTAIN the best records they need to play 100+ Win games for 80% of games which is what you suggested but pffff your call & we will see LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
btw I did a sim 'as of today' & got this (using 2009 rosters & predicted stats):
Code:
30 SEASONS SIMULATED
EAST Won Lost WC LC 1R 1st Wild 2nd 3rd 4th 5+
Baltimore 77.23 84.77 0 0 1 1 2 3 2 14 10
Boston 90.00 72.00 3 2 2 9 9 11 7 1 2
New York 86.73 75.33 1 1 3 3 6 7 13 7 0
Tampa Bay 92.53 69.50 5 6 4 16 7 7 6 1 0
Toronto 76.63 85.40 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 7 18
CENTRAL Won Lost WC LC 1R 1st Wild 2nd 3rd 4th 5+
Chicago 76.70 85.30 0 0 0 2 1 6 5 7 10
Cleveland 83.60 78.57 1 1 3 11 0 7 6 4 2
Detroit 82.50 79.67 1 0 4 8 1 10 6 1 5
Kansas City 75.60 86.53 0 1 1 4 0 2 4 10 10
Minnesota 81.03 80.97 0 1 0 5 0 5 9 8 3
WEST Won Lost WC LC 1R 1st Wild 2nd 3rd 4th 5+
Los Angeles 83.03 79.00 1 2 3 12 0 10 6 2 0
Oakland 83.03 79.00 1 2 4 11 2 9 7 3 0
Seattle 74.47 87.57 0 0 2 3 0 6 10 11 0
Texas 75.90 86.13 0 1 1 4 0 5 7 14 0
EAST Won Lost WC LC 1R 1st Wild 2nd 3rd 4th 5+
Atlanta 88.07 74.00 0 2 3 7 4 9 12 1 1
Florida 70.17 91.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 14
New York 91.33 70.73 2 1 7 13 4 8 9 0 0
Philadelphia 91.27 70.83 4 2 6 10 8 12 8 0 0
Washington 70.37 91.63 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13 15
CENTRAL Won Lost WC LC 1R 1st Wild 2nd 3rd 4th 5+
Chicago 87.03 75.00 0 3 2 11 4 8 6 2 3
Cincinnati 78.37 83.63 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 12 9
Houston 76.40 85.60 0 1 1 2 0 1 6 7 14
Milwaukee 87.00 75.03 3 2 2 10 2 9 4 6 1
Pittsburgh 65.10 96.90 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 28
St. Louis 85.97 76.13 0 1 2 7 2 10 6 2 5
WEST Won Lost WC LC 1R 1st Wild 2nd 3rd 4th 5+
Arizona 85.67 76.53 2 2 3 7 3 6 10 7 0
Colorado 76.83 85.17 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 17 2
Los Angeles 88.43 73.80 4 1 3 16 1 8 3 2 1
San Diego 65.90 96.10 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 25
San Francisco 84.00 78.23 0 0 1 7 1 9 10 2 2
Yes, and I think it's entirely possible that the Rays, Red Sox, and Yankees each perform at a 100 win pace against the OTHER teams in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
The reason there's been no multiple 100 win teams, overall, in the same division is because they play each other more often, as you say, which is why I don't think any of these 3 teams will win 100 games. But each of them performing at a 100 win pace against the other 11 teams in the league, plus interleague, is not out of the question, and I think it'll happen.
Random question...is there a reason MLB doesn't rotate which divisions play each other in interleague each year (similar to how the NFL does with non-conference divisions playing each other)?
I thought they did?Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
seems like the NL East & AL East play each other every year...don't recall the last time I saw the Brewers playing the Red SoxQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
There's a handful of pairings that they do every year - Yankees vs. Mets, Reds vs. Indians, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
But, to answer your question, the last time the Brewers played the Red Sox was May 18, 2008. :p
It doesQuote:
Originally Posted by etothep
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/interleague/index.jspQuote:
For the first five seasons of Interleague Play, each division played against the same division from the other league (NL East vs. AL East, NL Central vs. AL Central and NL West vs. AL West). As of the 2002 season, a new format to Interleague Play was instituted where teams play Interleague games against various divisions.
just kidding....place I was searching the schedules had them (unknowingly to me) split into pre & post all star schedules & thus I kept missing the opening half of the seasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I did read the first post to begin with, and it doesn't change my opinion at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Three best -- Rays, Yankees, and Cubs will win the most games. I think the Red Sox might actually underperform this year...could see their pitching suffering some (relative to how good the team was last year). The BoSox "only" winning 87-89 games wouldn't surprise me.
Three worst -- Orioles, Nationals, Padres. Padres team is crapawful. Nationals GM is crapawful. The Orioles play two great teams, one almost great team, and one good team 72 times. Rough.
Ummm...not true. As recently as 2001, AL West, Seattle won 116 games and Oakland won 102. Also, in 1993, NL West, Atlanta won 104 games and SF won 103. Back in 1980, AL East, NY won 103 games and Baltimore won 100.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I admit to not being able to understand half of what you're saying in this thread, but there's no way that the odds are a trillion trillion to one (or whatever you calculate) of the three best records being in the same division.
The key is not that the 3 teams (say Boston, New York and Tampa) have to win 100+ games each, because they don't. The key would be for there to be parity outside the division. In other words, the other division winners would have to win 85-92 games, roughly, each. That would allow our three elite teams to have the best records with something like 97-65, 95-67, and 94-68, which is entirely possible. This would require the three teams in question to play just a little more than .600 ball against everyone else (assuming the hypothetical 18-18 vs each other). If these three teams are great teams, and stay healthy, that is entirely possible.
There have been many, many, years during the 40 years of divisional play when multiple divisions were won with around 88-92 wins. Three divisions were won last year with 92 or less wins. So, if LAA and the Cubs decline, which is likely, in my opinion.....
It is true that the three best records in baseball have never been in the same division. It's been close, though.
In 1978 the Yankees and Red Sox were 1-2 in MLB with 100 and 99 wins, and Milwaukee finished third in the AL East with 93 wins. The third highest win total in MLB that year was the Dodgers with 95 wins, so the Brewers fell just 2 wins short of this "impossible" task (and Milwaukee's pythagorean expectation was 97-65 that year).
In 1982 the AL East had the two winningest teams in MLB, and the Red Sox, in third place, were 4 wins below the third highest total in baseball.
In 1977, the AL East had NY at 100 wins, Boston and Baltimore with 97 each.
These are just a few examples. There are several more for anyone who wants to look for them. I'm not saying that I expect the 3 best records to reside in the AL East this year. I am saying that it is well within the realm of possibility.
I'll take the Red Sox, Rays and Cubs for best records...Pirates, Nationals and Orioles for worst.
Hmm...
Most wins: Yankees, Angels, Phillies
I'm straying from the AL East a bit here, and making a couple of dark horse picks in addition to the Yankees. I also left the Cubs off, because I don't think they'll repeat last season's success. Is it because I like to root against the Cubs? Yeah, partly. But I also am thinking I might make the Cardinals my pick to win that division. Even if the Cubs repeat as NL Central champs, I think the Reds and Astros both have shots at being good teams, which will negate the effect of playing against that horrendously bad Pirates team.
I think this season will see mostly a great deal of parity, which is why I've chosen the Angels and Phillies (the 2 most sure picks I can see as division winners) to go along with the Yankees.
Least wins: Padres, Pirates, Diamondbacks
Nothing needs to be said about the first 2 (especially San Diego). The third pick is a little harder, and I'm tempted to pick teams like the Mariners or Orioles, but I feel that Arizona is one major pitching injury away from being a really, really bad team.
Also, the odds of 3 teams in the AL East (especially considering that a: the Blue Jays are a pretty strong team, and b: they play in the AL) being the winningest teams in baseball are staggering, to say the least. The Rays were a phenomenal team last season and "only" won 97 games, and didn't put up this 100+wins-equivalent performance outside of the division that keeps being mentioned. THREE teams doing it (with the Red Sox seeming to be a bit of a question mark in terms of greatness)... it's a veritable impossibility.
I think a lot of people are forgetting about how bad San Diego could potentially be next year. They are going to trade Peavy (I bet fairly early in the year, if not before the year starts) and were awful last year......and the owner is going through his issues or whatever and has been/is slicing budget big time......there is just nothing, absoulutely nothing going right for them it seems. They could put 110 losses, potentially.
Of course, now that I say this, they'll probably pull off a small miracle and win 77 games.
110, hell, maybe even 115, wouldn't surprise me. That team only has half a handful of MLB-caliber talent, if even that. Trade Peavy and you're looking at a bunch of junk and Adrian Gonzalez.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
And thereby win the NL West?Quote:
Of course, now that I say this, they'll probably pull off a small miracle and win 77 games.
I think you're greatly overestimating the Angels. They won 100 games in 2008, but outplayed their Pythagorean record by something like 12 games. Compound that with the loss of Mark Teixeira and the slight downgrade from K-Rod to Brian Fuentes...and you're looking more at a team that wins around 85 games, which very well might win the AL West...but Oakland's looking up and they're likely not done making moves.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I think the Angels are the pick right now for the AL West, but I'd put them somewhere around the 10th best record in the majors, with barely any shot at making the top 5.
I also wouldn't call the Phillies sure picks, at all. The Mets greatly improved their one weakness this offseason, that being their bullpen. The bullpen was the Phillies greatest strength in 2008, and given that they got career years out of guys like Clay Condrey and Chad Durbin, that's likely going to regress significantly in 2009. It was a close race in 2008, and I think the Mets are the clear favorites for 2009.
Tampa vs. non-Boston/New York in 2008: 80-47 (.630, 102-60)Quote:
Also, the odds of 3 teams in the AL East (especially considering that a: the Blue Jays are a pretty strong team, and b: they play in the AL) being the winningest teams in baseball are staggering, to say the least. The Rays were a phenomenal team last season and "only" won 97 games, and didn't put up this 100+wins-equivalent performance outside of the division that keeps being mentioned. THREE teams doing it (with the Red Sox seeming to be a bit of a question mark in terms of greatness)... it's a veritable impossibility.
Boston vs. non-Tampa/New York in 2008: 78-51 (.605, 98-64)
New York vs. non-Tampa/Boston in 2008: 69-57 (.548, 89-73)
No, I don't think it's a veritable impossibility that those three teams each perform at a .600+ winning percentage level against the other teams, considering they were relatively close to doing it in 2008, and all three teams have improved over the offseason (often at the expense of other teams).
The Jays were an 86-win team in 2008, but they're not going to be close to that in 2009. They lost Burnett to the Yankees. They'll be without Dustin McGowan and Shaun Marcum, who both pitched relatively well in injury-shortened seasons in 2008. Jesse Litsch has been solid so far in his career but his tiny strikeout rate doesn't bode well for a long career. Their pitching was their biggest strength in 2008. This year, they're entering the season with a rotation of Halladay, Litsch, David Purcey, Casey Janssen, and Scott Richmond. Maybe Scott Downs or Rickey Romero. Basically, a large amount of unproven and/or poor pitchers. The Jays and Orioles, I think, are both going to lose in the vicinity of 90+ games, with a large portion of those losses going to the other 3 teams in their division.
Best- Red Sox, Yankees, Mets
Worst- Nationals, Pirates, Padres
Weren't they on the same pace pre-Tex?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Too slight to affect their win total by more than 2 or 3 games, if even that.Quote:
and the slight downgrade from K-Rod to Brian Fuentes...
I understand that the Angels "shouldn't have won" as many games as they did, but it's really, really difficult for me to bet against the Angels winning a ton of games.Quote:
and you're looking more at a team that wins around 85 games, which very well might win the AL West...but Oakland's looking up and they're likely not done making moves.
I think the Angels are the pick right now for the AL West, but I'd put them somewhere around the 10th best record in the majors, with barely any shot at making the top 5.
Really, the "as of today..." parameter for picking the winningest/losingest teams just causes me to default to the 3 teams I (personally) see as having the best chances of winning their divisions. For me, right now, that's the Yankees, the Angels and...
...the Phillies. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't pick my Cubs/Cardinals thing to refute! That seems far more radical than picking the Phillies over the Mets.Quote:
I also wouldn't call the Phillies sure picks, at all. The Mets greatly improved their one weakness this offseason, that being their bullpen. The bullpen was the Phillies greatest strength in 2008, and given that they got career years out of guys like Clay Condrey and Chad Durbin, that's likely going to regress significantly in 2009. It was a close race in 2008, and I think the Mets are the clear favorites for 2009.
Yes, the Mets have improved. While the Phillies haven't really improved. But I simply think the Phillies have a better team, without any serious consideration for how things did play out/should have played out in '08. While the Philadelphia bullpen is set to regress, I think their rotation is set to improve, along with the rest of their young core. Meanwhile, Delgado and Beltran get one year older, the Met LF/RF is still weak, and the starting rotation still has some question marks.
I like the Phillies for the NL East.
I stand corrected about Tampa, but...Quote:
Tampa vs. non-Boston/New York in 2008: 80-47 (.630, 102-60)
Boston vs. non-Tampa/New York in 2008: 78-51 (.605, 98-64)
New York vs. non-Tampa/Boston in 2008: 69-57 (.548, 89-73)
... I still have to go with FSR here. Those teams playing each other for close to 1/4 of the season (and that 9-9 vs. each other thing [or anything even close] would be a massive statistical anomaly in its own right) really does throw an insanely HUGE monkey wrench into the whole mess. That, plus the odds of ALL THREE teams living up to expectations, which, in and of itself is asking a lot, statistically. There are too many variables to jell with the hard stats that all 3 teams are projected to be winners. It would take an enormous amount of parity in the other 5 divisions, and a WHOOOOOLE lot of luck for this to happen. The odds really are enormously stacked against this happening, to the point where picking any 3 random teams from the top 15 MLB teams would probably be a more likely outcome...Quote:
No, I don't think it's a veritable impossibility that those three teams each perform at a .600+ winning percentage level against the other teams, considering they were relatively close to doing it in 2008, and all three teams have improved over the offseason (often at the expense of other teams).
Ah crap. I wrote up a long response and lost it.
I really don't feel like rewriting it. Blah.
That means I win!!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Just kidding.
But the "as of today" thing does make this a little premature, and the question is an interesting and unconventional one.
There will be plenty more discussion to be had when the '09 predictions thread inevitably surfaces in March. For all I know I'll be picking the Mets and A's by then.