OK, so a group of us went to the Cheesecake Factory for dinner the other night, and one guy ordered a Caesar’s salad as a “starter.” Any of you who have been to any Cheesecake Factory know that you don’t order “starters” there — certainly not salads. The guy’s starter salad had roughly more leaves than the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. I guess it’s a solid restaurant gimmick — give someone WAY more food than they could possibly eat at one time — but seriously, how much food do you think they throw out at The Cheesecake Factory? We had a table for six, and there was enough food left over at the end to feed the entire Jackson Five AND Janet for the next two months. The same thing happened a few days earlier at P.F. Chang’s where I ordered wonton soup, and the waitress brought out a bowl so large I expected three witches to be casting spells around it. I appreciate that everybody wants to get good-sized portions when they go to restaurants, but when did every American restaurant turn dinner into a gluttony banquet at Emperor Vitellius’ house*?
*Vitellius (15-69) the Roman Emperor was such a glutton, apparently, he would send out his Navy to get the ingredients he needed for his giant food festivals. You gotta love that. I’m trying to imagine what the head of the Navy had to tell his men before those water-based invasions. “Men, we go into battle, and you are all my brothers. We fight together, for a cause, for history and … OK, if you happen to see some basil as we are going through, I mean, we’re not here for the basil, we’re really not, we’re here for history and the splendor of Rome and all that, but yeah if you see some basil and also if there’s a pheasant nearby, you know, just within shooting distance …”
I have no real connection from that opening to my theme here other than I have become a glutton for punishment on this Championship Caliber Guy thing … I appreciate that I’m not getting across my point because I don’t really have a point. This is just a little something I’ve long been curious about — how do you build a championship team? Do you get three or four stars and put average guys around them? Do you you six or seven good guys and then mix in a few average guys? Do you hope to get one immortal type guy, like a Pujols or Bonds or Mantle, and just fit as much as you can around them?
Obviously, the correct answer is .. there are a lot of ways to win. There’s no “right” way to win any more than there is a “right” way to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich*. But since when does the correct answer have anything to do with THIS blog? I believe there are better ways to win than others, and so I’m taking one final crack at this CCG concept — this time using Bill James’ Win Shares.
*I take this back … there is only one right way to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You put the peanut butter on one piece of bread, you put the jelly on another piece of break and then you slap them together. I do not understand these people who put the peanut butter down and then spread the jelly across the top. No. It’s wrong, people. Wrong.
Bill gave me a few suggestions about CCG … here’s what I did. I looked at every World Series team since 1961 — going back to when the schedule expanded to 162 games. That’s 92 pennant-winning teams. I then broke their top players into four categories using Win Shares. Here’s how I broke it down:
Players with:
40+ Win Shares: An immortal season.
30-40 Win Shares: An MVP type season.
20-30 Win Shares: A very good, all-star caliber season.
12-20 Win Shares: A good season.
Now, I realize this is very arbitrary — an 11 Win Shares season is not much different from a 12, and a player with 29 Win Shares could certainly have put up an MVP type season. But I’m not looking to get anything exact here but to very generally break down teams and see how many immortal players, how many MVP types, how many All-Stars, and how many CCG players a team might need to win a pennant.
It was reasonably fun to do. And I came away with a few conclusions — certainly nothing earth shattering but interesting to me anyway. After we’re done going over the points, we’ll try to put the 2008 Royals into the formula.
* * *
Conclusion 1: You don’t need an immortal to win.
This was the first thing that caught my eye: Eight of the 92 teams had players with immortal seasons — that is players with 40 or more Win Shares. Those eight were:
– Albert Pujols in 2004
– Barry Bonds in 2002
– Will Clark in 1989
– Joe Morgan in 1975
– Yaz in ‘67
– Frank Robinson in ‘66
– Willie Mays in 1962
– Mickey Mantle in 1961.
Of those I would say that only two — Bonds in 2002 and Yaz in 1967 — really CARRIED their teams to pennants. Bonds’ favorite teammate Jeff Kent also had a good year in ‘02, but clearly that was Barry’s show. And I’ve already gone over just how extraordinary Yaz was for the Impossible Dream Red Sox, especially in those wild and remarkable last couple of weeks. I guess you could also argue that Mays carried the Giants in 1962, and he was obviously the big guy, but that team also had Orlando Cepeda, and Felipe Alou had a really good year.
As for the others on the list, Pujols had two MVP candidates on his team; Clark didn’t even win the MVP over Kevin Mitchell (he deserved to win, but Mitchell had a great year too); Morgan was, of course, surrounded with book-inspiring and incredible talent; Robby’s lineup had two other Hall of Famers in it and the Orioles had a promising young pitching staff; Mantle’s Yankees had 13 guys with 12 or more Win Shares and, of course, Roger Maris set the home run record that year.
The point is that while it’s POSSIBLE for someone to have such a towering year that, surrounded by only a few good players, they can win it all, it’s not bloody likely. The immortal seasons tend to be a mixed bag. Here are the other immortal seasons since 1961, and the team’s record that year.
2004, Barry Bonds — Giants 91-71
2003, Albert Pujols — Cardinals 85-77
2002, Barry Bonds - Giants 95-66
2001, Barry Bonds - Giants, 90-72
1998, Mark McGwire - Cardinals, 83-79
1996, Jeff Bagwell - Astros 82-80
1993, Barry Bonds - Giants 103-59, great year but missed playoffs
1992, Barry Bonds - Pirates 96-66, lost in playoffs
1990, Barry Bonds - Pirates 95-67, lost in playoffs
1973, Joe Morgan - Reds 99-63, lost in playoffs
1972, Steve Carlton - Phillies 59-97
1972, Dick Allen - White Sox 87-67
1971, Joe Torre - Cardinals 90-71
1969, Reggie Jackson - A’s 88-74
1965, Willie Mays - Giants 95-67
1964, Dick Allen - Phillies 92-70
1963, Hank Aaron - Braves 84-78
1962, Frank Robinson - Reds 98-64
Obviously having one super duper star almost always will help a team win games — only in Carlton’s famous 1972 season did a team have a losing record with a guy having the immortal season. But it’s certainly no lock that one guy, no matter how good, can lead a team to the playoffs, much less to the World Series. I think most baseball fans understand this intuitively; others boo A-Rod.*
*It’s interesting to me that A-Rod has not yet had a 40 Win Shares season. He had 39 WIn Shares last season. That just goes to how you HOW GOOD 40 Win Shares is in a year.
* * *
Conclusion 2: You don’t absolutely need a legit MVP candidate to win … but it helps.
If 30 Win Shares represents an MVP-type season, then 57 of the 92 teams to make the World Series had at least one MVP. That’s about 62% — a pretty good percentage, but it still leaves means that 38% of the teams DID NOT have a real MVP type guy. I’m a little surprised by that, to be honest.
A few of those teams without a true MVP candidate would include:
– Boston last year. David Ortiz led the Sox with 29 Win Shares.
– Chicago in 2005. Paul Konerko led the team with just 24 Win Shares — nowhere near an MVP season.
– Minnesota in 1991. Hard to believe this but CHILI DAVIS led that team with 22 Win Shares. When your DH hits .277 with 29 homers and he’s the best player on the team, and that team wins the World Series, well, how the heck does THAT happen? More on that in a minute.
– Oakland in 1989. Amazing thing is that was the one A’s team under LaRussa without a real star on it — that team won 99 games and Carney Lansford led the team with 21 Win Shares.
– New York in 1977. Reggie led the team with 27 WS.
– St. Louis in 1964 Ken Boyer had 28 Win Shares and a lot of help as the Cardinals came back from 11 games down.
So you CAN win even without a 30 Win Shares team. But I wouldn’t recommend trying it. … Seventeen of the 92 teams had two or more MVP candidates. The 2004 Cardinals, for instance, did not have an especially well-rounded team but Pujols, Rolen and Edmonds all had MVP type years.
* * *
Conclusion 3: You really want at least four All-Star type players.
Four is just an average, of course. But it’s a good number. There have been teams with fewer than four All-Star types … in fact there are six teams that reached the World Series with only TWO All-Star type players:
1. The 2006 World Series Cardinals only had Pujols and Rolen. But, you will note, that team also only won 83 games and had they been in any other division, they would not have even sniffed the playoffs.
2. The 2000 Amazin’s had Edgar Alfonzo and Mike Piazza … and a slew of guys who had pretty good years.
3. The 1992 Braves had Terry Pendleton with a huge year (better than his 1991 MVP year) and Dave Justice … and they also had three starters, Smoltz/Glavine/Avery who had good years. I’m actually surprised, looking back, that Tom Glavine, with a 20-8 record and a 2.76 ERA in 225 innings had only 19 Win Shares. I think Bill rounded down by mistake.
4. The 1990 Reds had Barry Larkin and Chris Sabo and that nasty boys bullpen. I still don’t know how they did it.
5. The 1983 Phillies’ two stars were Mike Schmidt and John Denny.
6. The 1980 Phillies’ two stars were Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton. Hey, they had a system.
That’s it … the only six teams since 1961 to win a pennant with only two players to have 20+ Win Shares. A few teams have done it with three All Star types. Still, it seems like if you are hoping to contend you should have at least four All-Star types, and five wouldn’t hurt.
* * *
Conclusion 4: You could really use 10 or 11 Championship Caliber Guys.
And now, finally, we get to the newest definition of CCG — these are players with 12 or more Win Shares. That’s the number Bill James suggested; he feels that I was setting the bar a little too high before. When a player has 12 Win Shares, that means he’s probably playing every day, he’s probably contributing at an average-to-above-average level, he’s probably helping the team win. My good friend Bob Dutton breaks players down this way — he says there are players you win WITH and players you win BECAUSE OF. I like the sound of it anyway.
Let’s look again at that 1991 Minnesota team. They were woefully low on stars — even Kirby Puckett did not have an especially good year (.319/.352/.460, 15 homers, 89 RBIs, 119 OPS+). As mentioned, Chili Davis led the team with 22 Win Shares, putting him on the low end of that “All-Star Caliber season.”
But, the Twins won 95 games and, unlike that fluky 1987 Twins team, blew away everyone in the division. They didn’t just rely on their wacky home ballpark. How did they win again?
Look at the Win Shares:
Chili Davis, 22
Kirby Puckett, 21
Kevin Tapani, 21
Chuck Knoblauch, 20
Shane Mack, 20
Kent Hrbek, 19
Scott Erickson, 18
Jack Morris, 18
Rick Aguilera 15
Brian Harper, 15
Greg Gagne, 12
That’s 11 CCGs, which is just a notch above average for pennant winners. But more than that the number of CCGs, those Twins had EIGHT guys in that odd spot between 18 and 22 Win Shares — no other team has anything quite like that. Those guys aren’t quite All-Stars, and they’re not exactly average. They’re pretty darned good. They had a pretty darned good DH, a pretty darned good centerfielder a PDG DH, a A PDG centerfielder, three PDG pitchers and so on.
That’s a rare team — it would be hard to duplicate the Twins success, I think. But it should give fans of struggling teams hope — if EVERYONE on the team just has a good year, you never know what might happen.
An even more baffling team than the Twins is the 1997 Florida Marlins. Not only did the Marlins not have anything resembling an MVP candidate (Moises Alou and Kevin Brown led the team with 23 Win Shares) but they only had SEVEN CCGs, tying them with 2006 St. Louis for the fewest over the last 47 years. How did the Marlins do it? Well, by my count they had 13 players with anywhere from 5 to 11 Win Shares. That truly was a team effort … Darren Daulton, Jim Eisenreich, Craig Counsell, Greg Zaun, on and on, none of these guys were CCGs, but they contributed enough to help get the Marlins into that horrifying World Series. And that’s another thing to remember: That Marlins team really wasn’t very good.
These are exceptions. You can win a lot of different ways. But it seems to me that if you are going to try and create a blue print for how to design a pennant winner, well, to repeat:
1. One player (or more) should have an MVP type season.
2. Four or five players need to have All-Star Type season.
3. Ten or eleven players need to have good seasons.
Go ahead and look at your team and see if they fit the three categories. In the meantime, le’s see how it works with … the 2008 Kansas City Royals.
* * *
Conclusion 1. You don’t need an immortal to win.
That’s good because it’s quite clear that no one on this Royals team has the kind of talent to put up a Willie Mays type season.
Conclusion 2. You don’t need an MVP candidate to win … but it helps.
The Royals do not have a potential MVP candidate on the roster. It’s a void. Obviously, someone could just go crazy — who the heck thought that Carlos Pena would go cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs last year? The Royals would like very much to see Alex Gordon and Billy Butler take the big step forward this year so that they could be viewed as potential MVP candidates down the road. For right now that is too far-fetched to even talk about*.
*This reminds me: Apparently there was a bit of a tiff a couple of months ago between Royals manager Trey Hillman and a local radio station. Hillman was quoted in The Award-Winning Kansas City Star saying that he was toying around with lineups and I guess he had Gordon hitting seventh in one of them. Now, I didn’t hear it but Trey said that the radio station jumped him about hitting Gordon seventhe, and this ticked him off royally because he never SAID he would hit Gordon seventh, he just said he was doodling on paper — it was December, for crying out loud — and they treated it as if he had made this lineup out for the World Series or something.
OK, this seems like a fairly normal manager-media misunderstanding. But here’s my point: Why WOULDN’T you hit Gordon seventh? What’s there to gripe about? Where else would you hit a guy who hit .247/.314/.411 with 137 Ks in 151 games? Third? I mean, hey, I like Gordon’s potential as much as the next guy, and he was certainly better the last four months, and I would hope and expect him to have a good year and restore his promise as a rising star. But you know, can we wait until maybe he hits .250 in the big leagues before anybody goes off about where he hits in the lineup?
Conclusion 3. You really want four All-Star type players.
The Royals can at least give people something to think about here. They did not have a single player with more than 16 Win Shares last year but … I think Gil Meche can move into the 20+ realm this year. I had another scout email me the other day to predict that Meche will break through: “I saw him two or three times last year, and twice he was about as good as anybody I saw all year. … He had the best curve I saw all year. … He’s always had great stuff but I think he’s figuring it out.”
Gordon certainly has the talent to step into that All-Star level.
Billy Butler … everyone here knows how much I love Billy Butler’s bat. The guy can swing the bat.
Jose Guillen had 20 Win Shares last year, so he could repeat or do a little better.
And then … Mark Teahen could certainly step into that 20+ Win Shares category… David DeJesus could do it … I still love Zack Greinke’s talent … Brian Bannister is my favorite player in the game right now, and he had 13 win shares as a rookie … Joakim Soria has the look of lockdown closer … Luke Hochevar is impressing more and more people at camp.
So, wit a little imagination, you might find what Lou Brown called “three or four potential All-Stars” in there. Trouble is, none of them have actually done it yet.
Conclusion 4. You could really use 10 or 11 Championship Caliber Guys.
This is where Royals fans can really begin to hope, I think. The Royals only had six CCGs last year — DeJesus, Teahen, Meche, Gordon, Bannister, Mark Grudzielanek. But Bill James has been saying this during the off-season — and of course, I agree — that for the first time in a while it looks like the Royals are BEGINNING to get to that critical mass of good players that you need to win.
I mentioned 10 players in the section above, all with, I think, the potential to be pretty good players. That’s a much higher number than years’ past. Mark Grudzielanek had 12 Win Shares last year, so he’s an aging CCG. That’s 11 potential CCGs. Tony Pena won’t hit much, but his glove is good enough to possibly move him up into the CCG category. That would be 12.
The problem is the Royals right now have no margin for error, then really need 11 out of 12 guys to have good years, and it never works out that way (except for the 1991 Minnesota Twins). Someone gets hurt, a couple of guys have bad years, someone doesn’t develop like you expected, someone else has a crisis of confidence … you’re never going 11 for 12 in baseball.
Still, this is why there’s some hope in Kansas City — you can at least see where the Royals are going, and how they’re trying to get there. The plan is to keep adding CCGs to the team and keep developing them in the farm system. And it’s a good plan.
OK, here, for fun, are the 92 teams that reached the World Series since 1961. The first number is the number of CCGs (players with 12+ Win Shares on the team). And then, in parentheses, you will see the players on the team who had 20 or more Win Shares. You can do your own CCG study!
2007
Colorado 9 (Holliday 30, Tulowtizki 25, Helton 24, Hawpe 22, Atkins 20)
Boston 12 (Ortiz 29, Lowell 24, Youkilis 20)
2006
St. Louis 8 (Pujols 39, Rolen 22)
Detroit 13 (Guillen 26, Pudge v2.0 25, Granderson 20, Ordonez 20)
2005
Houston 11 (Ensberg 29, Clemens 25, Pettitte 22, Oswalt 22, Berkman 21).
Chicago 14 (Konerko 24, Buehrle 23, Garland 21)
2004
St. Louis 7 (Pujols 40, Rolen 38, Edmonds 36).
Boston 10 (Damon 27, MannyBeingManny 27, Ortiz 25, Schilling 22, Bellhorn 21)
*Interestingly, at least to me, Pujols, Rolen and Edmonds ranked 2-3-4 in baseball Win Shares behind Barry Bonds — 37, 35, 33. That was in every sense a top-heavy, star-studded team.
2003
Florida 10 (Lee 25, Pudge v2.0 23, Lowell 23, Castilo 22, Gonzalez 20, Pierre 20)*
Yankees 12 (Posada 28, Giambi 28, Soriano 27)
* I always forget that Josh Beckett only pitched 142 innings that year … I tend to think of him being the dominant force on that team becuase of his World Series.
2002
Anaheim 11 (Anderson 24, Glaus 22, Salmon 22, Eckstein 20)
San Francisco 9 (Barry Bonds 49, Kent 29)
2001
Arizona 9 (Gonzalez 37, Unit 26, Schilling 24)
Yankees 11 (Jeter 28, Bernie 24, Posada 23, Tino 21, Mussina 20)
2000
Amazin’s 10 (Alfonzo 36, Piazza 28).
Yankees 9 (Posada 29, Williams 26, Jeter 23)
1999
Atlanta 12 (Chipper 32, Andruw 28, Jordan 22, Millwood 22)
Yankees 10 (Jeter 35, Bernie 33, Knoblauch 25)
1998
Padres 10 (Vaughn 30, Brown 26, Veras 23, Joyner 22, Caminiti 20, Hoffman 20)
Yankees 15 (Brosius 27, Jeter, 27, Williams 27, O’Neil 26, Knoblauch 22, Tino 21)
1997
Florida 7 (Alou 23, Brown 23, Sheffield 22, Bonilla 21, Johnson 21)
Cleveland 9 (Justice 26, Thome 26, MannyBeingManny 21)
1996
Atlanta 10 (Smoltz 27, Chipper 26, Grissom 24, Maddux 23, Glavine 22, Klesko 20)
Yankees 9 (Bernie 26, O’Neill 22, Tino 21)
1995
Atlanta 10 (Maddux 30, Glavine 20, Chipper 20, McGriff 20)
Cleveland 10 (AlbertBeingJoey 30, MannyBeingManny 25, Thome 24, Baerga 23, Lofton 21)
1994
Bud Selig 0
Don Fehr 0
1993
Philadelphia 10 (Dykstra 32, Daulton 29, Kruk 25, Hollins 20)
Toronto 9 (Olerud 37, Alomar 30, Molitor 29, White 20)
1992
Atlanta 11 (Pendelton 35, Justice 23)
Toronto 12 (Alomar 34, Winfield 27, Carter 24)
1991
Atlanta 10 (Pendelton 27, Gant 25, Glavine 23, Justice 22)
Minnesota 11 (Davis 22, Puckett 21, Tapany 21, Knoblauch 20, Mack 20)
1990
Cincinnati 12 (Larkin 25, Sabo 20)
Oakland 10 (Rickey 39, McGwire 27, Canseco 26*, Stewart 21, Dave Henderson 20)
1989
San Francisco 7 (Clark 44, Mitchell 38, Butler 20)
Oakland 13 (Lansford 21, McGwire 21, Rickey 20)
1988
Los Angeles 10 (Gibson 31, Hershiser 25, Sax 24)
Oakland 10 (Canseco* 39, McGwire 27, Dave Henderson 26)
1987
St. Louis 8 (Clark 33, Ozzie 33, Coleman 24, Pendelton 21)
Minnesota 8 (Puckett 29, Herbie 25, Viola 24, Brunansky 20)
1986
Amazin’s 14 (Hernandez 29, Strawberry 26, Carter 23, Dykstra 23)
Boston 10 (Boggs 37, Clemens 29, Rice 28, Evans 24, Barrett 22)
1985
St. Louis 9 (McGee 36, Herr 30, Tudor 27, Ozzie 25, Clark 22, Coleman 20)
Kansas City 10 (Brett 37, Liebrandt 24, Saberhagen 24, Quiz 23)
1984
San Diego 13 (Gwynn 35, McReynolds 25, Wiggins 23, Martinez 21)
Detroit 11 (Trammell 29, Gibson 26, Hernandez 24, Lemon 24, Whitaker 22)
1983
Philadelphia 9 (Schmidt 35, Denny 23)
Baltimore 10 (Ripken 35, Murray 31, McGregor 21)
1982
St. Louis 10 (Lonnie Smith 26, Hernandez 24, Andujar 22)
Milwaukee 11 (Yount 39, Molitor 30, Cooper 29, Gorman Thomas 25, Oglvie 21)
1981 (10+ win shares because of strike)
Los Angeles 9 (Valenzuela 17, Baker 16, Cey 16)
Yankees 8 (Winfield 16)
1980
Philadelphia 10 (Schmidt 37, Carlton 29)
Kansas City 13 (Brett 36, Wilson 31, Gura 22)
1979
Pittsburgh 14 (Parker 31, Garner 23, Moreno 23, Tekulve 20 — Stargell won MVP with 18)
Baltimore 11 (Singleton 32, Murray 25, Flanagan 23)
1978
Los Angeles 12 (Lopes 26, Cey 25, Garvey 25, Reggie Smith 24)
Yankees 10 (Guidry 31, Nettles 26, Reggie 23, Randolph 23, Goose 20)
1977
Dodgers 13 (Reggie Smith 29, Lopes 24, Baker 21, Cey 21, Garvey 21)
Yankees 14 (Reggie 27, Nettles 25, Munson 22, Rivers 22, Lyle 20, Randolph 20)
1976
Reds 11 (Morgan 37, Rose 30, Foster 25, Griffey 25, Concepcion 23)
Yankees 11 (Nettles 28, Rivers 26, White 26, Munson 24, Chambliss 21)
1975
Reds 11 (Morgan 44, Rose 31, Bench 30, Foster 21)
Red Sox 12 (Lynn 33, Rice 20, Yaz 20)
1974
Los Angeles 12 (Toy Cannon 32, Garvey 27, Messersmith 25, Cey 23, Buckner 21, Lopes 21, Marshall 21, Crawford 20)
Oakland 10 (Reggie 30, Catfish 27, Rudi 24, Campenaris 22, Tenace 22, Bando 21)
1973
Amazin’s 9 (Seaver 29, Staub 23, Garrett 21, Milan 20)
Oakland 12 (Reggie 32, Bando 31, Tenace 25, North 25, Campenaris 20)
1972
Cincinnati 8 (Morgan 39, Bench 37, Rose 32, Perez 25, Tolan 22)
Oakland 10 (Rudi 29, Epstein 27, Reggie 26, Catfish 24, Bando 23, Campenaris 21)
1971
Pittsburgh 9 (Stargell 35, Clemente 24, Sanguillen 24, Robertson 20)
Baltimore 12 (Rettenmund 27, Buford 26, Johnson 23, Brooks 23, Robby 23, Palmer 22, Belanger 21)
1970
Cincinnati 12 (Bench 34, Perez 33, Rose 29, Tolan 29, Carbo 25)
Baltimore 11 (Boog 31, Buford 26, Robby 26, Palmer 25, Johnson 23, Blair 22, McNally 22, Brooks 21)
1969
Amazin’s 11 (Seaver 32, Cleon Jones 30, Agee 28, Koosman 25)
Baltimore 12 (Robby 32, Blair 28, Powell 27, Buford 24, Cuellar 24)
1968
St. Louis 11 (Gibson 36, Brock 31, Flood 27, Shannon 23, Maxville 20)
Detroit 10 (Freehan 35, McLain 33, Horton 28, McAuliffe 28, Northrup 24)
1967
St. Louis 12 (Cepeda 34, Brock 30, McCarver 30, Flood 26)
Boston 10 (Yaz 42, Petrocelli 23, Boomer 23)
1966
Los Angeles 12 (Koufax 35, Lefebvre 25, Regan 23, Roseboro 21, Davis 20)
Baltimore 10 (Robby 51, Boog 26, Brooks 24, Aparicio 22, Blefary 20)
1965
Los Angeles 12 (Koufax 33, Wills 28, Drysdale 27, Fairly 26, Lefebvre 23, Parker 20)
Minnesota 11 (Oliva 33, Versailles 32, Hall 26, Allison 22, Battey 22, Killer 22)
1964
St. Louis 10 (Boyer 28, White 26, Flood 25, Gibson 24, Brock 22, Groat 20)
Yankees 10 (Mantle 34, Howard 32, Maris 25, Ford 24, Tresh 20)
1963
Los Angeles 11 (Koufax 32, Davis 29, Gilliam 28, Wills 27, Howard 23, Drysdale 21, Fairly 21, Perranoski 20)
Yankees 13 (Tresh 29, Howard 28, Ford 23, Bouton 22)
1962
San Francisco 14 (Mays 41, Cepeda 26, Alou 25, Davenport 20, Sanford 20)
Yankees 10 (Mantle 33, Maris 25, Tresh 25, Richardson 22, Boyer 21, Terry 21, Ford 20, Howard 20)
1961
CIncinnati 9 (Robby 34, Pinson 32, O’Toole 22, Jay 20)
Yankees 13 (Mantle 48, Maris 36, Howard 29, Arroyo 23, Ford 22, Kubek 21).
Good stuff, Joe - fun to think about.
It does seem that the Royals are gathering a critical mass. That’s fun to think about, too!
March 2nd, 2008, at 11:48 pm #About the 2007 Red Sox not having any MVP-type guys…it’s OK to not have that MVP sort of guy when ALL of your everyday starters have double-digit Win Shares on the season. Predictably, no other MLB team last year could boast that.
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:01 am #Okay, Joe looked at Joe’s team, here’s my team, the Milwaukee Brewers
An MVP candidate (30-40 WS) helps
Not last year, but Prince Fielder was at 28. And assuming LF is less of a disaster than 3B, I think Ryan Braun could be.
4 All-star types (20-30)
Fielder
Corey Hart, 23 WS
Ryan Braun, 22 WS
Mike Cameron, 22 WS
10 or 11 CCGs (12-20)
J.J. Hardy, 19 WS
Rickie Weeks, 15 WS
Bill Hall, 12WS
Ben Sheets, 9 WS
Yovani Gallardo 9 WS
Getting 10 0r 11 CCGs is a tough thing to do, that’s all 8 of your regular starters and at least 2 pitchers at or above 12 WS.
The Brewers young and talented starting 8 is good now and still has room to improve (well, 7 of the 8… I don’t know that young and talented covers Jason Kendall in any way, shape, or form, but he did have Lasik surgery, so maybe he’ll see the ball better… hey’s its spring, and hope springs eternal.) This really is a fearsome lineup that should get better this year.
Braun, Cameron, and Hart were all above 20 WS last year and while Cameron will miss the start of the season, Braun has to be less of a butcher in LF than at 3B. I think Gabe Gross and Tony Gwynn, Jr. (4 and 3 WS in limited playing time) can hold the fort down while Camerson is out, so that’s a trio of all-star caliber outfielders between Braun, Hart and Cameron & Co.
Bill Hall had an all-star level 21 WS in 2006 while spending the majority of his time at SS, now he’s back in the infield where he’s most comfortable and playing 3B. JJ Hardy probably won’t hit for the same power as 2007 but he’s a solid bet to be a CCG for years to come. Rickie Weeks had 15 WS despite a lingering wrist injury that led to a poor first half and a trip to the minors. If he plays like he the last 2 months, he’s a 20+ WS all-star level player. And big Prince not only hit 50 HRs last year on his way to 28 WS, but now he’s ready to take out his anger at the conditions in cattle slaughterhouses on opposing pitchers. He’s an all-star level player for years to come.
So, 7 guys who are definite CCGs (with Hardy being the only one with a decent chance of regressing) and 4 or 5 solid all-star level players (Fielder, Braun, Hart, Cameron, and Hall or Weeks).
The pitching side is uglier, with Ben Sheets and Yovani Gallardo both finishing last year at 9 WS and Jeff Supan and Carlos Villeneuva at 8. The last year Sheets was healthy he had 21 WS, of course that was 2004. Gallardo looked dominant, so long as he wasn’t pitching against the Rockies, late last year, but he injured his knee early in spring training and probably won’t be ready for the start of the season. Supan’s 12 WS 2006 with the Cardinals is what got him the big bucks as a free agent, so there is at least hope that he can return to that level. Its unclear if Villeneuva will be a starter or a reliever this year. He may even start the year in the minors because he has options remaining, and even with Gallardo’s injury, the Brewers have an excess of starters. So, I’ll say 2 of the 4 pitchers will perform at a CCG level with an outside chance of Sheets or Gallardo performing at an all-star level. Hey, Sheets is in a contract year, so maybe it can happen.
That leaves the Brewers with 9 CCGs, but possibly 5 or 6 all-star level players. I’d say things are looking good in Milwaukee for this year and the future.
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:06 am #Interesting quote from Zack Grienke in the Star:
“Every good team has at least a couple of superstars who can carry the team. Then you fill in around them with the role players. We don’t have anyone who has proven they can carry a team.”
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:19 am #There ya go. Much, much better.
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:25 am #Championship Calibernesserossitude is a useful way to think about guys like Tony Pena Jr. It’s pretty clear he’s not an MVP candidate, and he may never play in an All Star game. But I’ve gone back and forth on the question of whether he’s a player you have to replace before you can contend, or whether he could be a valued and contributing member of a contending team that is nevertheless ultimately carried by other players. I guess at its heart, that’s the question that Championship Caliber Guys is trying to address.
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:47 am #I wonder which teams had the most CCGs while failing to have successful seasons.
March 3rd, 2008, at 4:19 am #JoeP,
Now you need to run a control. Let’s count the CCGs on teams that didn’t make the series or underperformed. What made me think about this were your numbers on the 1998 Yankees (15 CCGs). There have been a number of underperforming Yankees teams in the 2000s.
In sum, we’ll see how useful your CCG stat is once we see how it applies to teams who don’t make the series. If you’re numbers are useful, we should see very few teams with 10 CCGs who didn’t rise above. If we see a great many teams (say 7-10) with with 10 or so CCGs, then your stat is, well, for the sake of joie de vivre, or only tells us something about the haves and have-nots in baseball.
- TL
March 3rd, 2008, at 6:37 am #You spread the peanut butter on both slices of bread, to prevent the jelly from sogging through, then spread the jelly on top of the peanut butter.
That’s how you make a Championship Caliber Sandwich.
March 3rd, 2008, at 7:22 am #KJ–what’re you, an adult? What good is PBJ if you don’t need a wet nap?
March 3rd, 2008, at 8:43 am #Nicely done, Joe. Guess you really made something out of nothing there.
March 3rd, 2008, at 9:42 am #And I always love a mention of my second-favorite team of all time, the 1991 Twins (I’ll always have a soft spot for the outscored, would-have-finished-sixth-in-the-East ‘87 team).
Definitely one of the most balanced teams of all time. I don’t have access to historical win shares (where can I find that?), but I’d guess that the platoon of Pagliarulo and Leius at third was around 12 or higher too, making Dan Gladden really the only weak spot on the whole team (also about replacement level in the radio booth, it turns out).
In the 46 seasons detailed above, the team with more CCGs had no advantage in the World Series.
Not sure what this means….could mean that WS success has more to do with getting great performance from great players, could mean that tiny sample size negates the advantage of depth, could mean nothing at all.
Just thought it was interesting.
Also find it amazing that Scott Brosius led the 1998 Yankees in win shares.
I mean, if you asked a thousand baseball fans to name the most productive player on the deepest team of the last fifty years, how many would guess Scott Brosius?
March 3rd, 2008, at 9:57 am #Now that is a fun discussion. This analysis does not quite answer the question with which you began (How do you build a championship team?). It does help answer a related question (What is a championship team made of?).
Once you have an idea about the answer to the second question, you can begin to try to answer the first. Does a team try to gather as many11+ Win Share players as possible? Or does a team just try to collect as many total Win Shares as possible? At what point is it worth $70,000,000 or more to get a 30+ player?
This point calls to mind a personal pet peeve, which is when a team which collects quality players at several positions (usually through free agency or trades) is criticized for creating a “great fantasy league team” but a “bad actual team.” Isn’t the point of roster construction to get the best possible player at each position? Should the team have picked a few lesser players to sign to avoid looking like a good fantasy team? This criticism is usually leveled when a team has several players who underperform expectations, but that fact doesn’t necessarily mean that the roster was constructed poorly.
March 3rd, 2008, at 9:57 am #One other point — the list of top Win Share creators on championship teams is noticeably bereft of relievers. I suppose that is because even the best relievers do not log enough innings to record high Win Share numbers.
Yet surely the bullpen is a factor in measuring the quality of a team. Perhaps the Win Shares of a team’s relievers could be combined to create a “Bullpen Win Share.” It would be interesting to see how those numbers would compare among the championship teams. Of course, as one earlier commenter suggested, you would then need to compare these numbers to those of non-championship teams to help determine their relevance.
Finally, it would be useful to expand the analysis to playoff teams, rather than just World Series participants. World Series teams are usually not significantly better than playoff teams from the same season, and using all playoff teams would expand the data pool. Or, perhaps 90-win teams, or 95-win teams rather than playoff teams.
March 3rd, 2008, at 10:07 am #In 1979, if Stargell had an 18 WS, what was Hernandez’ score?
March 3rd, 2008, at 10:11 am #Echoing what was said earlier, where can you go to get the historic Win Share sdata? I’ve always thought that the Astros of Larry Dierker had outperformed their expectations (except in the playoffs). I know the Killer B’s are HoF bound, but I can’t seem to get a handle on the Caminitis of the team (so why didn’t he do the roids when he was in Houston?)
March 3rd, 2008, at 10:13 am #Why on earth would you want to prevent the jelly from sogging through?
Sog, jelly. Sog like the wind.
March 3rd, 2008, at 10:31 am #Okay. I’ll try it your way, Joaldo.
Though just the thought of putting the peanut butter on one side and the jelly on the other is making me nervous.
March 3rd, 2008, at 11:59 am #Joe, I would go one step further with your analysis of the Royals. I’m interested in knowing if it is easier for a low revenue team like the Royals to win with a plethora of above avg players, or go the 2-4 all star/MVP route.
My suspicion is that, due to the economics, it might be easier for a saavy GM like Moore to assemble a team like the 91 Twins, rather than a top-heavy type team.
I am happy with Moore’s approach so far - he seems to have attempted to fix some of the most glaring weakenesses first, such as the bullpen, Berroa, the back of the rotation, and LF. I think it is easier to replace the drains on your winshares first, and that is what he has done, for the most part, in a reasonably quick manner.
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:28 pm #Try the jelly on one side and the peanut butter on the other side. I find this to be less nerve wrecking.
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:40 pm #Where do the 2001 Mariners score on the CCG test?
March 3rd, 2008, at 12:54 pm #1994
Bud Selig 0
Don Fehr 0
That is the funniest thing ever written about baseball!
I like your study, it is very interesting. There were also quite a few “WHAT???” moments when I looked at some of these Win-Shares totals. Brosius had 27 in ‘98? How the HECK did that happen?
March 3rd, 2008, at 1:32 pm #“In the 46 seasons detailed above, the team with more CCGs had no advantage in the World Series.
Not sure what this means….could mean that WS success has more to do with getting great performance from great players, could mean that tiny sample size negates the advantage of depth, could mean nothing at all.”
Hmmm. I think it just means that in a best of 7, anything can happen, so small sample size. Also, a lot of these teams had 10-11-12 guys on it with a solid win shares total, so there probably wasn’t that much difference in quality between those two teams anyways, at least not enough to be able to say “Well, that team was definitely better.”
Detroit (13) losing to St Louis (8) in 2006 is probably the most noticeable exception, ofcourse. If they play each other 100 times, Detroit probably wins something like 59 or 60 of the 100 games.
March 3rd, 2008, at 1:36 pm #Joe, your analysis of the 1997 Marlins leaves out their most valuable player — Eric Gregg.
March 3rd, 2008, at 2:12 pm #Hernandez had 29 WS in 1979. I got it from Bill James’ book “Win Shares.” It’s from 2002; I don’t know if there’s a good source for historic data other than that, either in print or online.
March 3rd, 2008, at 2:18 pm #I hate to be an editor, however Vitellius wasn’t emperor from 15 AD-69 AD , but only for a few short months in 69 AD, a year known for having 4 separate emperors.
March 3rd, 2008, at 2:20 pm #I’ll confess that I still don’t quite get the point of this exercise. I mean, thanks for taking the time to compile all of that, but it seems that all you’ve accomplished is to give pretty strong evidence of a couple of things most people already knew.
1) Winning teams generally have more good players, and;
2) There are different ways to build a winning team.
Well, yeah. I guess I’m just slow on this one, but all of your effort on this is pretty much lost on me. Sorry.
Still, it was an entertaining read if only for the “1994 - Bud Selig 0, Don Fehr 0″ comment.
March 3rd, 2008, at 2:34 pm #I love that the first baseball blog I read every day has people correcting the author concerning nearly-2000-year-old Roman emperors who ruled for only a few months.
Keep it up Joe.
March 3rd, 2008, at 3:27 pm #“Also, a lot of these teams had 10-11-12 guys on it with a solid win shares total, so there probably wasn’t that much difference in quality between those two teams anyways”
Yeah, I think you answered my question. In a 7 game Series, what’s the difference between a team with 11 such guys and a team with ten?
I went back and looked at World Series where one team had an advantage of 3 or more players with at least 12 Win Shares and in those cases the team with more “CCGs” was I think 9-4 (I just did this two minutes ago and already forgot the exact tally…geez)
March 3rd, 2008, at 3:34 pm #Was there no where else to eat in the word, save the Cheesecake Factory and P F Chang’s? Sorry to focus on just that . . . but . . . at least tell me someone else was paying?
March 3rd, 2008, at 3:41 pm #KJ- you didn’t learn that recipe here did you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOaGkPXn9LQ&eurl=http://deadspin.com/sports/peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwiches/the-culinary-genius-of-bill-belichick-328925.php
March 3rd, 2008, at 4:12 pm #I guess looks can be deceiving because it sure looked like George Brett had an immortal season in 1980, I imagine if he could have played in more than 117 games he would have got there.
March 3rd, 2008, at 5:16 pm #“Vitellius (15-69)”
Well it’s just as well he was emperor because otherwise nobody would have let him pitch with a record like that. He must have stunk up the Colosseum something rotten.
March 3rd, 2008, at 6:15 pm #Same here, almost. I see the numbers (15-69) and think first of a L.A.Clippers-quality NBA record. (OK, it’d have to be 13-69 or 15-67.)
It must come from reading a blog written by a man who makes his living from sports, but I’m going to start getting it through my thick skull that anything can happen here.
March 3rd, 2008, at 7:31 pm #Wow. Just wow. If there is one thing to learn from this post, it is that whenever Joe believes something- he will stick with it. Jesus.
Does your wife miss you after all of that?
I will say, I still love the post.
March 3rd, 2008, at 9:45 pm #Why the asterisks after Canseco’s name? Is that a steroid asterisk? That would be lame. I’m hoping there was a footnote that you forgot to make.
That is weird that the ‘89 A’s team was the one “without a star,” especially because that team was so star-studded in terms of name recognition. Especially compared with the Moneyball teams of today.
March 4th, 2008, at 12:49 am #When I worked retail in one of those trendy shopping-and-restaurant districts, it was my solemn mission to make customers aware that there were half a dozen places both better and cheaper than The Cheesecake Factory within a two-block radius. I’m not tremendously elitist about these things - I’d eat at a Cheesecake Factory without complaint in the many places where chain restaurants are all you get - but it definitely fails the “better than saving the $15-20 and eating at home” test for me. My campaign didn’t change very many minds, which is how I learned that people go out to eat for very many different reasons, and quality of food is not always the main one, and that’s perfectly OK. Kind of sounds like a parallel to the Hall of Fame argument for a ballplayer whose name rhymes with Dim Mice, now that I think about it…
March 4th, 2008, at 1:25 am #PB&J - PB on one side, J on the other.
Then you spend the next 5 minutes eating the PB straight from the jar.
March 4th, 2008, at 10:37 am #Joe - isn’t using Win Shares to look at team composition inherently problematic? I’m no mathlete, but as I understand it, Win Shares are Team Wins * 3, distributed via complicated measures throughout the team. By definition, a playoff team will have more WS because they’ll have more wins. So all your ranking is doing is showing the small variances among teams as to how much they rely on a few key players vs. a well-rounded build, but skewed by how many regular season wins a team gets (as in 2006).
What does it prove? A .500 team will by definition have fewer WS to spread around, so will seem less full of CCGs than a playoff team. Pretty much all it demonstrates that if you want to make the playoffs, winning a lot of games is a good strategy.
But hey, I’m doubting Bill James here, so I’m probably wrong.
March 4th, 2008, at 10:52 am #Some people are born to denigrate. I can’t believe that anyone with an interest in baseball would look down there nose at this article except to troll. Well, enough on that. In summary, we’ve got the germ of an idea about how win shares actually correlates to pennants. Great food for thought on what the chances of my Rangers might be this year. Actually, I’m feeling pretty hungry. I hope our guys start setting the table soon.
March 4th, 2008, at 11:14 am #Thanks for the tip on Bill’s Win Shares book. I picked up a copy this week.
March 4th, 2008, at 2:38 pm #I’m trying to get this kind-of discussion started over at the Orioles Hangout but it’s not going too well.
I think it is a very interesting theory. You are only likely to have a couple real star players on your team, so it is important to know how many players you need on a certain level to be successful.
(Here’s the link to the message-board thread, by the way…http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60015)
March 4th, 2008, at 6:06 pm #I’ve got to say, 12 Win Shares is way too low for an “average” everyday player, but not for a pitcher. At THT, we track “expected Win Shares,” which is the number of Win Shares an average player would be expected to accrue, given a specific player’s playing time. Most every day players come in around 17 or 18 if they haven’t been injured. An everyday player who played all season and accrued only 12 Win Shares is a very bad player.
March 7th, 2008, at 6:42 am #No War for Basil!
March 7th, 2008, at 11:39 am #Minor nitpick, Joe. You said: “2. The 2000 Amazin’s had Edgar Alfonzo and Mike Piazza … and a slew of guys who had pretty good years.”
Edgardo Alfonzo is the infielder who helped the Mets reach the World Series in 2000:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/alfoned01.shtml
Edgar Alfonzo is Edgardo’s older brother, currently the manger of the Mets’ single-A affiliate, the Brooklyn Cyclones:
http://www.brooklyncyclones.com/team/coaches/index.html?staff_id=27
Great analysis otherwise, though!
March 7th, 2008, at 1:41 pm #