How To Win (And Lose) A World Series

[Wolf Hopper]

See: http://www.netshrine.com/20031027.html

Discussion welcome and appreciated.

[JamesI]

Seems about right. The Yankees success may have hurt them. They expected to win, more than they have in the past I think.
Also, they seemed unable to get the big hit ever. I can't remember a single Yankee homerun that had men on base, or a two run double. (Granted I missed three games due to unavoidable things occuring)

[Wolf Hopper]

Yanks had 6 HRs in the WS.

Bernie 2, & Giambi, Matsui, Soriano and Boone one each.

One of Bernie's, and the HRs for Matsui and Soriano came with runners on.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Flash back to 1960.

The Yanks outscored the Pirates 55-27 in that seven-game Series, beating them in OBP .380 to .293 and in SLG .528 to .355.

The difference? Once again, it was Game 4, but really, Games 1, 4 and 5 were all pivotal, although Game 7 is the one that everyone remembers.

In Game One, the Yanks managed 13 hits off Vern Law and ElRoy Face (including homers by Roger Maris and Elston Howard), but scored only 4 runs total. It was something they would get tired of doing against those two pitchers.

Meanwhile, The Pirates did well against Art Ditmar et al, including a big homer by Maz, scoring 6 runs on 8 hits.

Games 2 and 3 were no contests, with the Yanks lighting up Bob Friend (and friends) 16-3 in Game 2, and Whitey Ford winning a 10-0 shutout against Vinegar Bend Mizell in Game 3.

Comes Game 4 In Yankees Stadium, with Vern Law and Roy Face again surrendering a homer (Moose Skowron) and 8 hits total, but allowing only 2 runs. Ralph Terry pitched decently, allowing a 3-spot in the 5th, but that was all the Bucs needed. Series tied 2-2.

Game 5 was the Harvey Haddix and ElRoy Face show as Art Ditmar never made it out of the second inning, and the Bucs won 5-2.

Game 6 was another no contest as Ford bested Friend 12-0.

The Game that everyone remembers was Game 7, of course. For the Yanks, only Bobby Shantz acquitted himself well on the mound as the Bucs scored 10 runs, including big homers by Rocky Nelson and Hal Smith (and Maz of course).

Vern Law finally ran out of gas after 4 innings, and the Yanks knocked in 9 runs starting in the 5th, Skowron and Yogi Berra getting big homers.

IMO, the biggest difference was a very few players really stepping up. I'd guess you could say that about every big series and probably every post-season series ever played.

For two-and-a-half games, Vern Law was The Man and ElRoy Face was The Closer, scattering hits and a few homers but allowing very little damage.

Or you could say that the Yanks simply didn't "step up" in those situations. This I doubt, since the Yanks teed off on everyone else the Pirates threw out there.

In 1960, at least, it wasn't that the Yanks stopped hitting or stepping up, it was that two pitchers made the difference and stopped them.

[Wolf Hopper]

If The Marlins had started Redman in Game 6, this series could have been just like 1960 - - going 7 and the Marlins winning in the last game.

[Wolf Hopper]

I just saw on the World Series DVD tonight that the Marlins scored 12 of their 17 runs in the series with 2 outs.

Like I said in the feature - that's how you win!

[Wolf Hopper]

More validation!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...ter&id=1670649

Aaron Boone could have been a World Series hero without a hit. Game 4, 11th inning, bases loaded, one out. With a slow roller, Boone could have driven in the go-ahead run. Just a fly ball, and the Yankees would have controlled the Series, three games to one. Joe Torre's players used to excel in these situations, using their outs productively. Scott Brosius, the Yankees' third baseman during their dynasty of 1996-2001, was particularly adept at generating productive outs.

But Boone struck out, the Yankees failed to score and the Marlins' Alex Gonzalez slammed a decisive homer in the 12th. Florida would go on to win the Series in six games, at least partially because they dominated the Yanks, 9-5, in productive outs -- in keeping with a longstanding post-season trend.

This is the Productive Out, as defined and developed by ESPN The Magazine and the Elias Sports Bureau: when a fly ball, grounder or bunt advances a runner with nobody out; when a pitcher bunts to advance a runner with one out (maximizing the effectiveness of the pitcher's at-bat), or when a grounder or fly ball scores a run with one out.

There have been 142 post-season series since 1969. In 130, one team or another has had an advantage in Productive Outs -- and in 62.3 percent of those 130 series, the team with the advantage in Productive Outs has prevailed. Factor in the 12 series in which opposing teams have tied in Productive Outs, and it can be said that teams with a deficit in POs have won 34.5 percent of post-season series.

No team has won the World Series since the 1997 Florida Marlins with a deficit in this statistic.

[nyy26wc]

I'll bet that stat is nothing but a function of the importance of getting players on base. The alleged "productive" out is also productive in the area of preventing a further batter from coming to the plate with runners on base.

I'll bet that the winning percentage of teams that win in productive hits (getting on base in the same situations) will clobber the winning percentage of the team that wins in this outmaking category, by a comfortable margin.

[Wolf Hopper]

I would take it even further - that the team with the higher OPS with RISP and 2 outs will win most series - - just a guess, not having the stats to look at for sure.

I still say getting that clutch run in the post-season is important - - and, anyway you get it, is good.