This is the weakest hitting World Series since....?
- Thread starter PrometheusWakefield
- Start date
I was thinking about posting the same question. How about ever? I'm not really enjoying Bud's Small Sample Size Post Season. The individual games have been pretty tight, but a 4-0 outcome and a 4-1 outcome in the championship series are not exactly 2004 Red Sox-Yankees.
Braves probably? But that was because of strong pitching stafffs
92?
95?
Giants have traditionally given us a lot of offense in the past, 89 (lack of pitching) and 02 (Bonds)have been slugfests. Obviously the current vintage is a different story
92?
95?
Giants have traditionally given us a lot of offense in the past, 89 (lack of pitching) and 02 (Bonds)have been slugfests. Obviously the current vintage is a different story
I'd say maybe since 1991 - Braves v. Twins. While it was a memorable series that went 7 games, only three times did one of the teams manage double digit hits in a game (and twice the number was 10) and there were final scores of 5-2, 3-2, 5-4, 3-2, 4-3 and 1-0 - the only outlier was game 5 (14-5, with 17 hits for the winning Braves). Minny put up a team OPS of .693 and Braves .744...
FarvinMoosey said:
Gah - forgot about that. And it followed the ALCS where the Sox OPSed .609 to the Tigers thrilling .659.
I think 2006 is also in the running:
Cardinals OPS: .675
Tigers OPS: .581
Bonus points for offensive powerhouse David Eckstein being the Series MVP (he had a scrappy .891 OPS, which was lower than Molina's or Rolen's)!
I know Farvin was being somewhat facetious, but I'm guessing the OP meant regular season offenses. The Red Sox and Cardinals were 1 and 3 in run scoring and OBP last year, and 1 and 12 in SLG. That World Series matchup didn't lack for punch so much as also feature great pitching which tends to suppress offense when you can go with 4 man rotations and abuse the pens.
Right.Snodgrass'Muff said:
2014 Giants regular season OPS .699
2014 Royals regular season OPS .690
When was the last time anything like that happened?
Here's a point of comparison. In 2000, the weakest hitting team in baseball was the Milwaukee Brewers, who finished with a .728 team OPS and a .319 OBA. Both of those numbers are significantly better than either of the two World Series representatives this year.
It's becoming a trend in the postseason. It's not necessarily going to be about who hits better, but who hits when. And which team makes fewer big mistakes.
It seems this postseason there haven't been many, if any, games where a team just steamrolls the opposition with endless hit parades. Almost all of the games have either come down to one swing of the bat or someone chucking the ball into the dugout or something similar.
Last year seemed much the same, especially in the Red Sox case. In the ALCS, Games 2, 3 and 6 were basically decided on two grand slams and a solo home run. Games 1 and 5 were decided by scores of 1-0 and 4-3.
In the World Series, Games 2 and 3 were won on bad throws by the Red Sox. Game 2, up 2-1, Carpenter hits a sac fly to knot the game 2-2. Then Breslow chucks the ball away scoring the go-ahead run and putting Descalso at third. Next play, Descalso is singled in. We all know how Game 3 ended.
Revisionist history is hard, but it's quite possible the Red Sox could have won the series in four or five games. Of course, in hindsight, I'm happy that it went six games allowing them to win at Fenway. Point is, close games being decided with one swing of the bat or on a bad play.
And just think, in an alternate universe, Kolten Wong doesn't get picked off, Carlos Beltran goes yard. The Cardinals win game 5 in extra innings. Series goes back to Fenway, Sox win convincingly in game 6, but then drop game 7 as Allen Craig drives in the winning run.
It seems this postseason there haven't been many, if any, games where a team just steamrolls the opposition with endless hit parades. Almost all of the games have either come down to one swing of the bat or someone chucking the ball into the dugout or something similar.
Last year seemed much the same, especially in the Red Sox case. In the ALCS, Games 2, 3 and 6 were basically decided on two grand slams and a solo home run. Games 1 and 5 were decided by scores of 1-0 and 4-3.
In the World Series, Games 2 and 3 were won on bad throws by the Red Sox. Game 2, up 2-1, Carpenter hits a sac fly to knot the game 2-2. Then Breslow chucks the ball away scoring the go-ahead run and putting Descalso at third. Next play, Descalso is singled in. We all know how Game 3 ended.
Revisionist history is hard, but it's quite possible the Red Sox could have won the series in four or five games. Of course, in hindsight, I'm happy that it went six games allowing them to win at Fenway. Point is, close games being decided with one swing of the bat or on a bad play.
And just think, in an alternate universe, Kolten Wong doesn't get picked off, Carlos Beltran goes yard. The Cardinals win game 5 in extra innings. Series goes back to Fenway, Sox win convincingly in game 6, but then drop game 7 as Allen Craig drives in the winning run.
The Giants are an NL team that plays in a pitcher's park, so their raw numbers aren't great, but they were 9th in the majors in OPS+. The Royals were 24th.
In 2005, the White Sox and Astros finished 17th and 23rd respectively in OPS+.The 2008 and 2010 Series also featured two teams that both finished outside the top 10.
In 2005, the White Sox and Astros finished 17th and 23rd respectively in OPS+.The 2008 and 2010 Series also featured two teams that both finished outside the top 10.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Becoming a trend? I mean, short series are the definition of small sample size. The postseason has always been closer to an exhibition than a true test of opposing teams' relative strength.
I think PW's initial post had more to do with the teams' season-long performance, though. So assuming that, here's the last 10 years of WS participants' OPS+, AL first, winners starred:
2014: KCR 91, SFG 99
2013: BOS* 117, STL 102
2012: DET 103, SFG* 106
2011: TEX 110, STL* 112
2010: TEX 98, SFG* 98
2009: MFY* 114, PHI 104
2008: TBR 101, PHI* 99
2007: BOS* 107, COL 98
2006: DET 99, STL* 97
2005: CWS* 95, HOU 90
2004: BOS* 110, STL 107
(oh what the hell, I'll do some more)
2003: MFY 114, FLA* 97
2002: ANA* 105, SFG 110
2001: MFY 100, ARI* 94
2000: MFY* 103, NYM 98
1999: MFY* 110, ATL 96
1998: MFY* 116, SDP 100
1997: CLE 111, FLA* 98
1996: MFY* 100, ATL 96
1995: CLE 116, ATL* 91
So my conclusion is, yes, KC and SF are the lightest-hitting pair of teams to make the WS since 2005, and the 2nd-lightest in the Wild Card era. Of course, KC's ERA+ is 114 (though SF's is only 100), it's not like they're flukes. Just not a lot of consistent flash at the plate.
I think PW's initial post had more to do with the teams' season-long performance, though. So assuming that, here's the last 10 years of WS participants' OPS+, AL first, winners starred:
2014: KCR 91, SFG 99
2013: BOS* 117, STL 102
2012: DET 103, SFG* 106
2011: TEX 110, STL* 112
2010: TEX 98, SFG* 98
2009: MFY* 114, PHI 104
2008: TBR 101, PHI* 99
2007: BOS* 107, COL 98
2006: DET 99, STL* 97
2005: CWS* 95, HOU 90
2004: BOS* 110, STL 107
(oh what the hell, I'll do some more)
2003: MFY 114, FLA* 97
2002: ANA* 105, SFG 110
2001: MFY 100, ARI* 94
2000: MFY* 103, NYM 98
1999: MFY* 110, ATL 96
1998: MFY* 116, SDP 100
1997: CLE 111, FLA* 98
1996: MFY* 100, ATL 96
1995: CLE 116, ATL* 91
So my conclusion is, yes, KC and SF are the lightest-hitting pair of teams to make the WS since 2005, and the 2nd-lightest in the Wild Card era. Of course, KC's ERA+ is 114 (though SF's is only 100), it's not like they're flukes. Just not a lot of consistent flash at the plate.
Damn you, MDL, I was all the way down to 2006 when the notification for you post popped up. That's 10 minutes of my life i won't get back. 
But yeah, both you and maufman make the same points I was about to post. I was just too slow on the draw.
But yeah, both you and maufman make the same points I was about to post. I was just too slow on the draw.
Well then, the answer is clearly 2005. The Astros bats didn't do them any favors as they were swept in that Series, but the 95 OPS+ White Sox somehow managed a .847 OPS in that series, so maybe there is hope for this series (or at least one team)....
A couple of notes from Elias:
The combined winning percentage of the Giants (88-74) and Royals (89-73) - .546, 177-147 - is the second-lowest for any World Series, only one percentage point higher than the .545 (176-147) mark for the 1973 WS between the A's (94-68) and (82-79).
This will be the first World Series (following a non-shortened regular season) without a team that won 90+ games. The only two World Series to date without a 90-win team were in 1918 (Red Sox 75-51, Cubs 84-45; World War I) and 1981 (Dodgers 63-47, Yankees 59-48; players' strike).
The combined winning percentage of the Giants (88-74) and Royals (89-73) - .546, 177-147 - is the second-lowest for any World Series, only one percentage point higher than the .545 (176-147) mark for the 1973 WS between the A's (94-68) and (82-79).
This will be the first World Series (following a non-shortened regular season) without a team that won 90+ games. The only two World Series to date without a 90-win team were in 1918 (Red Sox 75-51, Cubs 84-45; World War I) and 1981 (Dodgers 63-47, Yankees 59-48; players' strike).
I think this is the first time since 1968 that both pennant winners had a team OPS below 700. I think the Royals' OPS (690) was the lowest for a pennant winner since the 1988 Dodgers, and the lowest for an AL pennant winner since the DH rule took effect.PrometheusWakefield said:
I didn't look closely, so I could've missed something.
That 2005 Astros team had a team era of 121. They finished 3rd in the NL in SB with 115.
The Whitesox had 3 MR with era+ of 200+ and 137 sb to finish 3rd in tge NL.
I wonder if you use something that factors in baserunning to offense how these teams would rate. That Whitesox team kinda looks like the Royals.
The Whitesox had 3 MR with era+ of 200+ and 137 sb to finish 3rd in tge NL.
I wonder if you use something that factors in baserunning to offense how these teams would rate. That Whitesox team kinda looks like the Royals.
I think the absolute numbers are more interesting than the OPS+ ones when answering the original question.
From a macro perspective, yeah, I agree. It's a neat, though incomplete look at how offense has changed over time. In comparing matchups (ie.. one World Series vs another), I'm not sure that the raw data tell us very much, though.singaporesoxfan said:
Let's not forget how bitter some writers at ESPN are about this series:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/welcome-to-the-best-world-series-ever-and-why-espn-cant-see-it/comments/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/welcome-to-the-best-world-series-ever-and-why-espn-cant-see-it/comments/