Remarkably, of the ten times the Indians have made it to the postseason, only once- in 2001- have...

Remarkably, of the ten times the Indians have made it to the postseason, only once- in 2001- have they not been in first place on June 13, and in 2001 they were just a half-game out. Of course, ten years out of 108 is a pretty small sample size, and what the Indians did in 1920, 1948, or even last year has little to do with the situation in which they find themselves in the here and now. But it isn't exactly cause for optimism. To qualify for the playoffs in 2008, the Indians would have to do something they've never done in over a century of play.

Can they do it? For your sakes, I'll leave that to the experts.

The Meaning of June 13 - Jessie Lamovsky

5 months ago Cap'n Snegiryov Comment 10 comments 0 recs |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

In this little ditty from TheClevelandFan.com, author Jessie Lamovsky looks at historical precedent to see what kind of odds the Tribe is facing in the playoff race given that we’re 6.5 games out in mid-June. Good stuff-he gives a little bit of perspective to fans getting too wrapped up in the day-to-day ups and downs of this season-but the scope of the article is, admittedly, very limited.

Because of this, I was curious to see how other clubs facing our current situation (.500 record or below and not leading their division by June 13) in past years had fared. Using Retrosheet.org to look at playoff teams from 2000-2007, I found these teams meeting that particular description:

2007 Chicago Cubs (29-35, 5.5 GB)
2006 Minnesota Twins (29-34, 12 GB (!))
2005 Houston Astros (26-36, 13.5 GB (!!))
2005 New York Yankees (30-32, 6.5 GB))
2004 Atlanta Braves (30-32, 4.5 GB)
2003 Florida Marlins (32-36, 13.5 GB (!!))
2001 Houston Astros (31-31, 7 GB)
2000 San Francisco Giants (30-31, 6.5 GB)

So there you have it-over the past eight years, eight teams who have faced our current situation (some have faced much worse) came back to make the playoffs-among them, a World Series champ and an NL pennant winner. Since 2000, on average one out of every eight MLB playoff teams have had a .500 record or below and have been least one game behind in their division as of June 13, so I think it’s reasonable to infer that our situation isn’t as hopeless as many are claiming it to be. The way I see it, all other things being equal, we have a 12.5% chance of making the playoffs, and this doesn’t take into account all of the injuries and BABIP-related bad luck that have screwed us in the first place.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 14, 2008 4:14 PM EDT 0 recs

“Historical precedent” of this kind is utterly meaningless. The only things worth concentrating on are the facts on the ground: the standings inside of this season, and the quality of the competition. We’re only 6.5 behind a very mediocre division leader, with most of the season unplayed. We’re obviously not in the best shape, but our odds of winning our division are better than 12.5%. It’s not even worth putting a number on it at this point; let’s just say that it’s “within reach”.

by jhon on Jun 14, 2008 4:31 PM EDT 0 recs

It ain’t “most” by much.

by Jay on Jun 14, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

calm down guy. no need for bold type and everything -

The alarmists would have you believe the season is over already. I was just trying to illustrate that, even if we ignore all of the elements that will impact our division race (team ability, health, strength of opponents, etc.), and look at how teams in our situation have fared in the past, things are far from hopeless.

And if you want to consider all of those things, look at PECOTA. Right now, it has us at a 15.8% chance of winning the division and 17.2% chance of making the playoffs.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 14, 2008 5:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

Who you callin’ guy. Oh, I’m calm allright. I’m one pretty calm guy, most of the time.

PECOTA isn’t news to me. I’ll pay close attention to it before the season and further down the stretch run, but much less in the early part of the year.

I’m dismayed at the white-flagism. The Vic / Haad substitution was the final straw for many or most around here, it seems, but I don’t believe a 6.5 game defecit is hopeless until we’ve only a month to go. FWIW, I am still convinced the division race is between us and the Tigers. And whatever happened to teams that didn’t include players current roster is irrelevant. I’m really supposed to believe that if we’re not leading on this particular date-as the 1920 Indians were-is a kind of proof that we’re finished? Those weren’t the Indians, those were the 1920 Indians. Big difference.

Cubs fans can be narcissistic like this. They’ll be leading their division and saying, “we’ll blow it because we’re the Cubs”, as if previous iterations of rosters and seasons influence the present.

by jhon on Jun 14, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

The whole “guy” thing just reminded me of the Endless Canadian Argument. (And got the remix version stuck in my head for while there.)

What? I’m totally making important contributions to this site. Really.

Hard truth: Your eyes lie.

by AngG on Jun 15, 2008 1:44 AM EDT up 0 recs

As a team, the 1920 Indians hit .303/.372/.417.

That is a big difference.

by odradek on Jun 15, 2008 2:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

I spoke of the “historical precedent” mentioned in the original article, not your examples. We’ve agreed all along that there is hope, and that a climb from our hole wouldn’t be the kind of miracle that catapulted the Rockies last year.

Things are looking up.

by jhon on Jun 14, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

ah, got ya

You’re right about the historical precedent cited in the article being meaningless-the fact that these were all Cleveland teams is irrelevant, and his method is equivalent to just randomly choosing a handful of playoff teams from 1920 onward using their records on June 13th to try to draw some kind of conclusions. Hell, in 1920, there were no divisions, no wild card, and like half as many teams as there are now. I just found the idea of using a historical sample interesting-I wanted to see how teams in our situation had fared in the recent past. I actually wasn’t even going to reference the article, and was going to make my initial comment a fanpost on its own, but I didn’t feel right borrowing the guy’s idea without referencing his work.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 15, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up 0 recs