Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
October 21, 2004
Quality vs. Quantity

It didn't take Red Sox fans long to get smug about their great victory in the ALCS. Bambino's Curse quotes Soxaholic:


And the Soxaholix get it right: This puts an end to the Bucky Dent crap NY fans have thrown in our faces since '78. That dog don't hunt no more. Now NY fans can torment themselves with thoughts of Johnny [expletive] Damon.

You see, the problem is that "Greatest Comeback Ever" is in the eye of the beholder. Now, I happen to agree that this was likely the greatest comeback ever. But coming back from 13 games down and having your light hitting shortstop administer the lethal blow is pretty darn close to the greatest comeback ever. Being 1 strike from losing the World Series, down 2 runs in game 6, no one on base and still coming back to win the series is pretty darn close to the greatest comeback ever.

So by my scorecard, the Red Sox were involved in three of the greatest comebacks in baseball, and are 1-2. You get to flash the #1 finger, but the Yankees will always have Bucky Dent and the Mets will always have Bill Buckner. Those things just don't go away.

(The Bambino's Curse permalink isn't working yet, so try here It's working now.)

Update: There's one other thing. There is a greater comeback possible. A team could win the first three games of the World Series and then lose the series. We'll know in a few days if there's a chance of that happening.


Posted by David Pinto at 05:27 PM | Post Season | TrackBack (1)
Comments

Been an objective observer (A's fan, hate everybody), I think the 2004 ALCS is a greater comeback than the other two. This is because choking away a penant race with double digit lead (I think) and blowing a game with 2 outs and 2 up have happened, but coming back from 0-3 has not. Maybe I'm wrong about the 13 game, but in any case, the probability of winning 4 after 3 loss is slim to the gazillion th time.

Posted by: wilson at October 21, 2004 05:49 PM

M's fan here, however my hat's off to the Sox's majical comeback. The mystery, drama, intensity and suspense of it all....and who said baseball was boring?

Posted by: Leimomi (My_Oh_My) at October 21, 2004 07:25 PM

I dunno, I can remember the Angels' 1995 collapse pretty well. There's different kinds of comebacks--- postseason series comebacks, regular season comebacks, and in-game comebacks. This was the best postseason series comeback. But what if the Sox had been down by 10 runs in those extra-inning comebacks in Games 4 and 5? Or if they'd reached the postseason only by winning their last 12 games, or something like that? Or if they were severe underdogs for the series to begin with?

Posted by: Adam Villani at October 21, 2004 08:40 PM

Bucky F---ing Dent and Aaron F---ing Boone still work. Sorry Blosox fans, but 26-(1?) is a nice advantage even after the GreatestChokeEver.

That said, the RedSawx were one strike away from losing the '86 ALCS when Dave Henderson went yard on an 0-2 pitch, top 9th in game 5 to turn that season around.

My buddy and I bleed pinstripes and we had our share of depression and worry that we documented daily during the ALCS. Read about it here and know that I saw this coming Sunday night when Rivera blew the 4-3 lead in game 4 . . .

Posted by: The Monk at October 21, 2004 08:41 PM

I'm a Mets fan, and I have to say that the Sox comeback is slightly bigger. As someone else said, other teams have come back from bigger deficits ('69 Mets, 1951 Giants, etc.), and scoring three runs with none on and two out is an achievement, but the odds against are not as astronomical.

Posted by: paul at October 21, 2004 08:54 PM

The odds of coming back from an 0-3 deficit, if you assume the teams are evenly matched, are 1 in 16. That's not astronomical. The fact that it has happened much less that that indicates that usually teams that lose three in a row are not evenly matched against their opponents. But we knew from the regular season that wasn't the case this year.

Posted by: David Pinto at October 21, 2004 09:02 PM

Not for nothing, but nobody outside of New York calls him "Aaron F---ing Boone."

Posted by: Bryant at October 21, 2004 09:24 PM

Clearly postseason games should not count the same as regular season. David's assertion of 1-16 odds is well taken, but that's like saying winning the WS is nothing but winning 11 out of 19 games. We all know these are not equals. I can't see how the 2004 Yankees will live this down, since their name will forever be mentioned whenever a team goes down 0-3, perhaps even in basketball. Since they can't beat the Yankees in the WS, I bet the Sox fans will take this for the next 86 years.

Posted by: wilson at October 21, 2004 10:14 PM

Hats of to the sox for turning it around after the fiasco of game 3. I submit, though, that this is just setting up for a more dramatic failure later. (cue echoey spooky voice) THEY WILL FIND A WAY....

The real drama is if they could possibly find a way to top the way the blew it in 86.

On another note, what is Damon using in his hair. For a "grubby" guy, he sure is well coiffed with high sheen hair and well groomed beard. I watched the game with a baseball novice last night and she was mesmerized by his shiney hair. This was the first game on that I have watched this year and was suprised how, uh, foppish damon looked, especially with his hair bouncing behind him. As a yankee's fan, it could be sour grapes though. It was also noted that jeter's ass was perfectly round (as in, astronomers calibrate their instruments by it), so it was that kind of evening.

Posted by: tarik saleh at October 21, 2004 10:49 PM

I accept that the odds of coming back from 3-0 are 15-1. But the collapse was from a 2-run lead with two innings to go in Game 4. What are the odds of that comeback? Conservatively, say 7-1. So the prob of the comeback from that point to win the series would be 1/(.125*.5*.5*.5) or 63-1. That's a lot more 15-1.

Posted by: SoxFan at October 22, 2004 10:14 AM

Sure, the odds weren't astronomical, but we were down a run against Mariano Rivera in the 8th. And then we were down 2 to Rivera the next night. Surely you Yankees fans, who crow about the greatest postseason reliever ever, don't think two comebacks against him aren't impressive? I mean, wouldn't that be disrespecting him to say "oh, he just blew two consecutive saves in the ALCS, no big deal?" This isn't Bob Stanley we're talking about.

You know, you'd think fans who have 26 championships that they love to drag out on anybody would be a bit more magnaminous and tip their caps to the Red Sox. You'd also think they'd begrudge the Sox and their hard-luck fans just a modicum of victory. But I guess you guys are just like Georgie - it's not that you win but that the other guys lose. And that's pretty sad.

Posted by: illegitimate son of dwight evans at October 22, 2004 10:30 AM

The Mets comeback was much more unlikely. The Mets were in a situation where they needed to get about five people on base to score 3 runs. Since they had a .338 OBA that year, the odds of them getting five men on base was .0044, or .44%. Couple that with having to win game 7, and the odds of a Met victory in the series with 2 out and none on was about .22%.

In reality, they got four men on base and a wild pitch and an error gave them extra bases. I don't think the probability of those two events would change the calculation much. From a probabalistic standpoint, the Mets comeback was much less likely.

Posted by: David Pinto at October 22, 2004 10:38 AM

I'm a Yankee fan. And I do tip my cap to the Sox, son o' D. In fact, the majority of my Yankee fan friends do as well. So for you Sox fans out there who think all we have are sour grapes, you're mistaken about a great many of us.

The Sox executed, the Yanks didn't. Francona made the right moves, Torre didn't. The Sox delivered the single greatest postseason comeback in history. What's not to tip your cap to?

Posted by: Dave S. at October 22, 2004 11:09 AM

David, do the odds for a Sox comeback down by one run in the bottom of the 9th against the "greatest closer in baseball history."

In other words: what are the odds of the Sox getting two runs in that inning (to win, since that's the calculation you use with the 86 Mets needing "to score 3 runs," as you say, although they needed only 2 to tie) and THEN go on to win the next three games in a row? (After all, the Mets needed to win only one game after Game 6, not three, and certainly not two games at the opposing stadium, which anyone at Baseball Prospectus can tell you makes a difference.)

Let's say, oh, the Sox needed to get three on base to score 2 runs, to be fair, and to keep to the spirit of your Met calculations. Three guys on base? Against Rivera? Highly unlikely.

Do that, Poindexter -- do ALL the calculations, not just the ones that support your argument -- and maybe I'll take you seriously.

Posted by: Kevin Maas at October 22, 2004 02:15 PM

Such abuse! And by someone who is not willing to leave his real name or e-mail address. I guess he can dish it but not take it, the coward. Anyway, the Red Sox had a 12.8 percent chance of getting four men on vs. Mariano, given that the team had a .360 OBA on the year (I figure most teams that get four men on base in an inning score two runs). Mariano allowed a .285 OBA, so let's split the difference and say the Red Sox should have a .323 vs. Mariano. So that gives the Red Sox a 9% chance of winning that game. They then have a 1 in 8 chance of winning three in a row, or 12.5%. If you multiply those two together, you get .011, or 1.1%. So the Red Sox comeback, even take from the point of Mariano on to start the ninth, is 5 times more likely than the Mets comeback.

Posted by: David Pinto at October 22, 2004 02:38 PM

Hey Dave S.,

I hear you. Actually before game 6 started I had one of those classic bar conversations with an intelligent yankee fan who said he was dreading the end of the series because the Sox had all the momentum. I didn't mean to imply all Yankee fans are assholes - just the ones trying to discount the fact that the Red Sox did what no other team in MLB history has done. For them, either the feat is nigh meaningless, or "hey they haven't won as many championships as we have!". Anyway, thanks for having some class.

Posted by: illegitimate son of dwight evans at October 22, 2004 03:11 PM

The 1951 Dodgers led the Giants by 13.5 games on August 12th. There is no question that this was a greater comeback, statistically, than the 1978 Yankees, who trailed by 14 on July 19th.

So you have to include that one if you're going to throw around the phrase "pretty close to the greatest comeback ever," unless you mean to say that it runs second to the Giants comeback.

Posted by: A Sox Fan at October 23, 2004 01:50 AM

It’s funny how Yankee fans try to rationalize their pain away. Regardless of true mathematical odds, which can endlessly be debated, the fact is the Yankees were the **first** team in baseball’s 100-plus year history to choke away a 3-game lead like that. OTOH, teams have made up or lost huge leads in the standings before (the Phillies, the Mets, etc) and have rallied before when down to their last outs. The Yankees made history this year. Be proud, Yankee fans, lol!

Posted by: Barrett at October 24, 2004 05:08 PM