The Year After

by David S. Cohen on Feb 10, 2009 11:08 AM EST

In 2008, the Phillies went 92-70, finishing 3 games ahead of the Mets in the NL East and ultimately winning the World Series. What can we expect this year, the year after the world championship?

Of course, one way to answer this question is to use a complex system like PECOTA or Marcel's Monkey to predict each team's performance for the year. I'll leave that to others.

Another way to approach the problem, with admittedly much less predictive value but nonetheless with some informative content, is to look at recent trends of the World Series champions. And those trends don't bode well for the Phillies.

Over this decade, taking away the Phillies, there have been 8 World Series won by 7 different teams. Only the Red Sox have won twice. The point of this study though is that no team won the World Series two years in a row. And, six of the eight teams that won the World Series lost more games the year after the World Series year. Only one reached the World Series the year after.

On average, the World Series champion lost 4.25 games more the year following the World Series.

This chart summarizes the performances of the World Series winners this decade:

Year	WS Winner	WS Year Record	Next Year Record	Change	Postseason
2000	Yankees	87-74	95-65	+8	lost in World Series
2001	Diamondbacks	92-70	98-64	+6	lost in NLDS
2002	Angels	99-63	77-85	-22	none
2003	Marlins	91-71	83-79	-8	none
2004	Red Sox	98-64	95-67	-3	lost in ALDS
2005	White Sox	99-63	90-72	-9	none
2006	Cardinals	83-78	78-84	-5	none
2007	Red Sox	96-66	95-67	-1	lost in ALCS

What does this chart prove for the Phillies this coming year? Like I said above, there is no exact predictive value here.

But, what it does show is that regression to the mean is a very powerful thing. Just like it can be the powerful force behind the Sports Illustrated cover jinx, it can also be the reason that World Series teams struggle to keep up the level of excellence the year following the championship. Thus, not only will the Phillies be battling against the re-vamped Mets and Braves this year, but also against a basic mathematical principle.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

baseball prospectus projections

phils in third with 88 wins… : /

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

by char6587 on Feb 10, 2009 2:16 PM EST reply actions

slight quibbling

Tied for 2nd with the Braves at 88 wins as well.

by David S. Cohen on Feb 10, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

and the pecota projections don’t look so great to me this year. that depth chart they are using for the phillies seems way off. we lose a win with respect to replacement level for getting a bunch of at-bats from chris snelling (who i can’t imagine plays this year) and someone named jason ellison. has anyone ever even heard of him? i don’t know who that is. it doesn’t seem to really reflect reality. for the 20% of the time or so that victorino may not be in CF, most of that will be filled by jayson werth. and during that, in RF, the phillies will get at-bats by stairs and jenkins, maybe dobbs and bruntlett. certainly moreso than by chris snelling and jason ellison.

by Matt Swartz on Feb 10, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions

The whole idea that an athlete is really jinxed by an SI cover or that a team loses more games after a championship season based on a statistical trend is absurd. Actually what this trend shows is that teams that are solidly built (‘00 Yanks, ’01 D-Backs, ’04 and ’07 Red Sox) come back the next year and contend again. Sure, it’s unlikely the Phils repeat in ’09 just based on odds, but to say that they have to “battle” a “basic mathematical principle” the same way they have to battle the Mets and Braves is illogical.

The Phillies proved in ‘08 that talent combined with a team concept and a common desire to win yields success. Aside from a new left fielder, the team remains virtually unchanged in its core players—as long as they play the same way they did last year, there’s no reason why the 2009 team can’t enjoy considerable success

by Aspeed8 on Feb 10, 2009 7:24 PM EST reply actions

You're ignoring regression

The statistical trend the Phillies have to deal with is not what’s happened over the past decade. Rather, they have to deal with the basic idea that things regress to the mean. The Phillies got peak performances from many players last year. Will they do it again? Sure, it’s possible. But, it’s also very possible/likely that those peak performances regress. They can still be good, but just not the same level. That’s the point of regression to the mean. It’s not a jinx or a trend. It has nothing to do with common desire or team concept. It’s just that peak performance can’t be sustained forever.

by David S. Cohen on Feb 11, 2009 9:38 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks for clarifying

OK, that makes more sense…when I first read the thread that concept didn’t occur to me. And in that regard I agree with what you’re saying—the Phils definitely benefited from players having career years, something that’s very hard to rely on the following year. Thanks for clarifying.

That being said, would you say it’ll be harder for the hitters or pitchers to perform at the same level again this year? It seems easier to make projections for the better hitters (that Howard will hit at least 40 HR’s, for example) whereas pitchers seem harder to pinpoint (like predicting the success Romero and Lidge had in ‘08). That’s what it seems like to me anyway—further thoughts?

by Aspeed8 on Feb 11, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions

Who had peak years

I agree with your general statement that players cannot sustain peak performances year after year, but I’m not so certain last year was a function of a number of peak performances. Rollins played well below his peak. Utley had a good year but not necessarily a peak year. Howard did not have his best year. Ruiz did not have a peak year. Feliz did not have a peak year. Jenkins did not have a peak year. Werth and Victorino may have had peak years, and perhaps Dobbs as well. Burrell had a good year, but he’s gone. Ibanez will probably represent a slight drop off. For the hitters, it seems to me there are as many if not more opportunities for players to have beter years in 2009 than 2008 than there are players whose performance should drop off.

I think your argument finds more support among the pitchers. Hamels, Lidge, Madson, Durbin, Romero and Moyer all had seasons that may be difficult to replicate. And we got some positive contributions from Happ that may not be duplicated. Only Myers and Kendrick have significant upsides, and having Blanton for a whole year may help. I’m not that optimistic about Kendrick and I don’t think Myers is likely to reblossom as a consistently dominant starter, although he will hopefully be better over 162 games than he was last year. I guess Chan Ho Park can add some upside too, although I’m not optimistic abut that either. I’m not counting on Eaton for anything but BP. The only wild card is a possible signing or one of the minor league pitchers emerging.

So my best guess is that the team will be as good or better offensively — hopefully more consistent without the long scoring droughts that occurred last year — but that it may give up more runs. What that means in terms of wins and losses is hard to predict. You may well be right, but I don’t think regression is inevitable under these circumstances.

by MJW on Feb 11, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions

I agree generally

I agree with your assessment generally. “Peak” may not be the way to describe the top performances, but “close to peak” is pretty good for describing Victorino and Werth. Certainly “peak” or “close to peak” describes the pitchers that you included on your list.

by David S. Cohen on Feb 11, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions

I agree and disagree. Last year’s team really didn’t perform that far above what you would expect from them in a normal year. I mean, 92 wins isn’t all that much better than the 87 or so that they’ve typically pulled down this entire decade. So I don’t know how much regression we need to fear in 09. Then again, we don’t need to have very much regression to miss the playoffs, seeing as how it was such a close call in 08.

We’ve basically still got the same team we’ve had for years.

by taco pal on Feb 11, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions

I’m having a similar conversation over at BP regarding this issue in the comments section of a Jay Jaffee article. I contend that Lidge was having a career/peak year. But, in general, most of the team had seasons at or even below their norm. Rollins was below par as were Howard and Ruiz. Even Feliz didn’t reach his modest expectations.

I think Werth and Vic were showing what they can do. Dobbs might have been a little over his head but Jenkins and Bruntlett and Coste weren’t.

It’s probably going to be difficult for Mopyer to match his 2008 but Myers was sent to the minors for part of last season and he sucked before that. Blanton was only with the team for a while and he wasn’t at his best. (Remember he was fighting some arm problems for much of the year). Eaton and Kendrick put up a lot oof bad starts.

This year the Phils also might get some help from their youngsters — which they really didn’t last year. Happ; Carrasco; Marson and Donald all may help the 2009 team. There may be some others too.

I think it will be difficult for the Phils to repeat, mainly because it’s such a tough thing to do. But I don’t think they’ll have a huge “regression to the mean” problem, (Unlike the ’93 squad for example).

by smitty99 on Feb 11, 2009 7:25 PM EST reply actions