The Long Suffering Padres fans

When people think of the “long suffering fan” they think of the Cubs, Lions and maybe anyone from Cleveland.  Few people think of San Diego.  They probably should since San Diego has its very own curse . But that just might show you how little respect San Diego gets for how bad it is in sports in that people don’t even give it credit for how bad it is in sports.  Great weather; bad sports.  But this is a baseball blog.  So we’re going to focus on why being a Padres fan is a rather unique level of hell.

As I write this the Padres are 18-21.  6.5 games behind the first place Giants.  3 games under .500.  Fourth Place.  5-5 in their last 10 games.  12-11 at home.  Typical.Padres Logo

No, seriously, this is absolutely typical.  The Padres are never, I repeat ever, very good. They are also never, ever, really bad.  At least not over long periods of time.  As we looked at the Red Sox history earlier this year, let’s take a look at the Padres.

Below is the history of the Padres along with the other 3 expansion teams that started in 1969.

Padres History

Remember, when I talk about years on these graphs and in the blog I’m talking about the ten year periods ending with that year.  Of the four 1969 expansion teams, the Padres had, by far, the worst start.  They were over 300 games under .500 in their first 10 yrs.  That’s a horrible way to start off a franchise.  The Royals, by comparison, were above .500 in their first 10 years and the Brewers topped .500 by the 10 yrs ended 1982 (when they made the World Series).  Montreal cracked .500 by 1985.

Randy-Jones-PadresThings did begin to improve for the Padres, though.  A few strong years in the early ’80s drove them to within 100 games of .500 in 1984 (their WS year).  That’s 100 games UNDER .500.  And there they have stayed.  The Padres have never gone above .500 for any 10 year period in their history.  Since the Padres were founded only one other franchise can say that, the Colorado Rockies, who have had only 12 ten-year periods (vs the Padres 36).

But now we get into San Diego’s unique form of hell.  While the Padres have never been good for a sustained period of time, they’ve also never really been that bad.  Since 1985 when they first got within 100 games of .500, 22 of the 30 teams have had 10 year periods where they were more than 100 games under .500. But not the Padres.  The Padres are one of only 8 franchises to not fall more than 100 games under .500 for any 10 year period since 1985.

This means that while Padres fans have never been able to experience a long term period of success – and thus can never really get cocky and confident like fans of many other teams – they’ve also never been able to just throw in the towel.  Winning must always seem so tantalizingly close.  Padres fans can’t just give up.  Padres management can never really tear it down and rebuild.  They’re never horrible, just mediocre.

Just how mediocre are the Padres?   The Padres Hall of Fame has inducted 8 people.  One is Tony Gwynn – pure greatness.  tony-gwynnAnother is Dave Winfield – another all timer.  But only 4 of the 8 are even players.  Of the non-players, one is an executive, Buzzie Bavasi, who led them through 1977 (that’s the 300 games under .500 period, by the way) and one is a manager, Dick Williams, who was just 26 games over .500 over 4 years and whose average finish was 3rd.  Of the players, only one is a pitcher, Randy Jones, and he won only 92 games as a Padre and 100 total in his career.  We can only assume that Trevor Hoffman will be inducted soon.  The most wins in franchise history – 100 by Eric Show (meanwhile in 8 less years Toronto has 5 guys with 100+ wins and Seattle has 3).

Looking at the Padres through the Hall of Stats’ Hall Rating, the 2nd best Padre of Winfield-Padresall time was Winfield with a Hall Rating as a Padre of 59.  The other 1969 expansion teams have 7 (Expos/Nats), 6 (Royals), and 4 (Brewers) with higher ratings than that. Of the expansion teams since 1969 only the Marlins have less players with Hall Rating greater than 59 and they don’t keep anyone long enough to get there so they have their own issues.  The current Padre with the highest hall rating is Chase Headley with 31, and who knows how much longer he will even be a Padre.

This is mediocrity at its finest.  Never good, but never bad.

Is there hope?  Realistically, not in the next few years.  The Padres would have to finish 39 games over .500 to finish 2014 at .500 for the 10 year period. Since they’re 70 games under for the last 6 years, they would have to have some serious sustained  success to counter that.  With the Dodgers and Giants loaded, it doesn’t look good for Friars fans.

Padres fans, look on the bright side, you have great weather.

The Yankees of Kingsbridge Grounds

A stubborn creek and an outlaw baseball league conspired to keep the Yankees from moving to a very different part of the Bronx and from playing in a stadium with a centerfield wall 900 feet from home plate.  A hundred years ago this week, in the April 9, 1914 issue of The Sporting News, there’s a small piece about a potential agreement between the New York Yankees and the Brooklyn Superbas to play a series of exhibition games before the regular season for the next five years.  This article ends saying that the agreement calls “for seven games each spring, to be played alternately at Ebbets Field and the Yankees’ new stadium at Kingsbridge”

But the Yankees never played a game in Kingsbridge.  What happened?

Hilltop Park 1908 - overflow crowd on field

Hilltop Park 1908 – overflow crowd on field

Prior to 1913 the Yankees were officially called the Highlanders and they were not the Yankees we know in more than just name.  They played second fiddle to John McGraw’s New York Giants and  while the Giants played in and won multiple World Series the Highlanders had never even won a pennant.  From 1903 to 1912 the Highlanders played in cozy Hilltop Park in upper Manhattan.  The Park was small and in 1912 the Highlanders even moved some games to the Polo Grounds to accommodate larger than normal crowds.   The writing was on the wall and in 1913 the Highlanders abandoned Hilltop Park and the Highlander name, moving to the Polo Grounds and becoming the Yankees.  The plan was to play in the Polo Grounds for just one year.  Yankees’ owner Frank Farrell already had his eye on a site in Kingsbridge and had been working on the site for several years at this time.  The Yankees ballpark was planned for Broadway and 225th street, which is technically now in Marble Hill just east of Broadway and now occupied by a large block of apartment buildings.  The Yankees wanted their own place partly to forge their own identity but also because the Giants wanted their stay to be brief and in late 1913 the NL owners voted to prohibit stadium sharing except in extreme circumstances.

To really understand this story, we need to learn a little bit about the Kingsbridge site.  The location of this proposed stadium has a fascinating history.  SpuytenDuyvilCreek

Until 1895, Manhattan and The Bronx were separated in the north by the Spuyten Duyvil Creek which curved up and around a large hill called Marble Hill and was basically unnavigable (as shown in the map on left above).   In 1895 a canal was built straightening the creek south of Marble Hill and turning the hill, basically, into an island (as shown in map on top right with the current map bottom right).  The old creek would be filled in over time and the powers that be felt that the eastern piece of the landfilled creekbed was the perfect spot for a ballpark.  But as maps show and logic would dictate, this was more than just a creek.  The map below shows an old map of the creek overlaid on the current street map. I’ve rather crudely drawn the approximate site of the Kingsbridge stadium and, as you can see, the old creek basically goes right through the field. Creek with StadiumAnd this term “creek” seems a bit misleading.  The Harlem River fed through this creek winding up and around to reach the Hudson River.  When straightened, the new canal is much wider and calmer but likely carries nearly the same amount of water as the narrower creek carried.  It’s safe to say this was not going to be an easy job.

Ironically, the first team to consider a move to Kingsbridge was the Giants.  In May 1908 The Pittsburgh Press announced that “it is pretty certain that” the Giants would leave the Polo Grounds due to the rent being raised and said they “may select a park at Kingsbridge”   Kingsbridge was described as “at the very end of the subway line” and “really easier to reach than the present location to which one must travel on the slow-going elevated train”.  According to the Press, the Giants paid rent of $20K per year and the National League also paid $16K in rent for Manhattan Field, which adjoins the Polo Grounds, to “prevent any rival baseball organization securing the field.” There was no mention again of the Giants and Kingsbridge and the Giants stayed in the Polo Grounds until 1957.

The Yankees began working on the location in 1911 when grading and filling of the new park was announced.  In February 1911 it was expected that work on the stands would begin in March but when March came around it was announced that completion of construction of the new stadium had been pushed to next year because “difficulties were found in the way of completion of the new park”.

In what would be a recurring event, in October 1911 the Highlanders announced that construction would commence on November 1 and the new stadium would be finished in time for Opening Day 1912.  For the first time, actual plans for the stadium were disclosed.  The grandstand would “resemble the huge affair at the Polo grounds”, would be a double-decker seating 22,000 and would be constructed entirely of steel and concrete.  The rear of the stand would face Broadway and have an entrance from the subway station at 221st street. There would be no seats in the outfield except for a wing which would extend beyond the right field line.  In total it would seat 33,000 with additional standing room for another 10,000 in the outfield.

Polo_grounds_panorama

Polo Grounds – 1905

But work appears to have never really begun that winter because in August 1912 it was again announced that work of filling in the site was “progressing”. It appears that the grading and filling of the old ship canal was harder than originally expected.  The Times mentions that “the filling in to date has only been refuse and ashes and a vast amount of filling in remains to be done before work on the grounds can be begun”.  A lot of work was going on in the vicinity as in the summer of 1912 the city completed improvements to 225th street and a rail spur was built to bring fill to the location.  At this point in August 1912 the stadium was expected to be completed by the summer of 1913.

Despite the issues filling in the creek, by January of 1913, the stadium seemed to be such a foregone conclusion that Yankees President Farrell felt it was necessary to announce the extensive transportation options for the new stadium.  Fans had been worried about just how far uptown the new stadium would be and it’s important to understand that in 1913 this area of New York City was quite rural.  It was announced that the fastest route would be on the New York Central from Grand Central (now Metro North).  The New York Central planned to erect a trainshed over six tracks at a new Kingsbridge terminal and special trains would run to and from the park. Other options included the 6th Avenue Elevated, the Broadway Subway to 225th and a number of trolley lines.

But simultaneously with this confident announcement we learn that the construction difficulties had continued.  The old creek still had not been filled in!  The same Times article mentioning transportation options said “the wide creek which runs through the site must first be filled in and this water will be taken through a concrete conduit which will be constructed”.  This was nearly two years after it was first announced that grading was near completion. The stadium design and location remained the same, double-decker stadium with home plate at the corner of Broadway and 225th street.

A year later, in January 1914, grading was finally finished and it was believed that the new park could be finished before the 1914 season ended. The infield had been built and the ground was now being allowed to settle with work on the grand stands expected to begin in early Spring.  Oh My God, it’s happening!!

The Times gives us a hint of what has been going on saying that a year ago the site was “practically under water”.  The “infield is one of the most scientifically constructed diamonds in the major leagues.  The foundations consist of different layers and it will be impossible for water to lodge on the infield, as the drainage is almost perfect.”

In early 1914 it was announced that the area of the new park would be the largest in the majors. With pride it’s announced that “the outfield fences will be so far from home plate that it will be impossible to bat the ball out of the park.”  The distance from home plate to the center field fence would be more than 300 yards(!). That’s 300 yards, 900 feet!  But despite the fact that the grading was finished, we start to see some cracks in the foundation.  The stadium was downsized a bit with the double-decked grandstand being eliminated and replaced with a single story stand of concrete and steel that would extend down the lines with bleachers built beyond the extensions and total capacity still at around 30,000.  This was starting to look a lot more like Hilltop Park and a lot less like the Polo Grounds.  It’s likely that the Yankees ownership was experiencing some financial difficulties.

In 1914 the Federal League began play as a third major league.   Players jumped to the new league, salaries rose to compete with the new league, and the overall economic future for all franchises became a little cloudy.  This probably could not have come at a worse time for Farrell and Devery, the Yankees owners.  Finally, in September of 2014, it was announced that the park at Kingsbridge hadbeen abandoned.  After over 3 years of work and after finally succeeding in filling the creek and grading the field, Yankee ownership was giving up.  The decision does not seem to have anything to do with construction, but rather, the impact of the Federal League.  The new outlaw league tightened the alliance between the AL and NL and now, in a reversal of the 1913 decision against the practice, AL and NL clubs would get together wherever it was advisable.

So the Yankees new home on the shores of the Spuyten Duyvil Canal was dead due to a perfect tag-team of the ghost of the old creek and the birth of the new Federal League.  The challenges filling in the creek delayed the stadium construction just enough to allow the outlaw league to put the final nail in the coffin.

So that was the end of the short story of baseball in Kingsbridge.  Or was it?

Frank Farrell and Bill Devery sold the Yankees on December 1914 and the ink had hardly dried before Farrell was found to be seeking a Federal League franchise to put on the Kingsbridge site.  Another report said Farrell wanted to sell the Kingsbridge site to the owner of the Brooklyn Federal league team or to the Kansas City Federal league franchise.  None of this happened, Farrell faded into obscurity, the Brookfeds stayed in Brooklyn and the KCFeds moved to Newark and then the Federal League folded after the 1915 season.

Farrell and his partner Bill Devery sold the Yankees to the Colonels Ruppert and Huston.  When they bought the team, Ruppert and Huston announced they had no intention of moving the Yanks to Kingsbridge but did announce that they planned to build a new stadium for at least 40,000 not far from the Polo Grounds and games would be played there in 1915.  The Colonels toured Comiskey Park in Chicago taking copious notes for their new stadium. But they would not disclose the location.  Yankee fans anxiously awaited the opening of their new stadium.  And waited.   And waited…. and waited.

It wasn’t until February 1921, more than six years later, that work finally began on Yankee Stadium when grading of the site began.  When work began on the Stadium it was said that this was the original site the Yankees wanted to build on back in 1915 but they did not because they felt they needed to be in Manhattan.  In the interim, other sites considered by the Yankees were 136th Street and Hamilton Place and a site on the east end of the Queensboro Bridge along with other properties throughout Manhattan.  So the Yankees could have ended up in Queens!  In 1915 the subways did not easily reach 161st street and River Avenue but by 1921 the transit system did extend far enough to make it easily accessible from all parts of Manhattan.  Look at the picture below from Opening Day in 1923 to get a sense of how rural this area was.

Yankee Stadium - Opening Day 1923

Yankee Stadium – Opening Day 1923

Finally, with the Yankees secure in their new stadium, the story of Kingsbridge’s possible major league baseball stadium comes to an end.  But it is interesting to wonder what might have been.  If it had been a little easier to fill the creek. If the Federal League had not launched.  If Farrell and Devery did not run into financial issues.  If all these things didn’t happen simultaneously.  We could be taking the 1 train to 225th street to watch the Yankees, a franchise historically built on pitching, speed and defense to take advantage of the huge outfield expanse that no longer extends 900 feet, just 500 feet to the center field wall.

On second thought, I like what really happened.

A Long Term look at Boston Red Sox history

What was the most successful period in Boston Red Sox history?  Ted Williams’ era? Big Papi’s run over the last ten years? How about the early 20th Century when Boston won 5 World Series led by guys like Cy Young, Tris Speaker, Smokey Joe Wood and Babe Ruth? Babe-Ruth-RedSox How would we define what was most successful?  In the last post I explained that I’m trying to figure out what makes baseball teams great or bad over time.  Let’s use the Red Sox history to start determining what is great, what’s just good and what is bad.  And while we’re doing that we’ll learn which Boston era was dominant, if any.

I started with a database of every season for every franchise from 1901-2013, excluding the Federal League (thanks Lahman Database!).  I wanted to analyze long term performance and reduce the impact of short term performance so I grouped team W-L records into rolling periods of 5, 10 & 20 years.  Rolling periods are periods made up of consecutive years where the next rolling period begins with the year following the first year of the prior period.  Examples of consecutive rolling 10 year periods are 1921-1930, 1922-1931, 1923-1932, and so on.  Using rolling time periods has a smoothing effect and reduces the impact of one “lucky” year and allows us to focus more on long term success.

Once I had the data I needed to determine what’s the proper rolling time period to use.  Below is a graph charting the historical games above .500 for the Red Sox from 1901 to the 2013 using 3 different rolling periods – 5, 10 and 20 years.

RedSox-Historical-graph

On first glance, all 3 lines show a nice up-and-down pattern as Boston’s fortunes waxed and waned.  You clearly see an up in the 1910’s, a decline in the late 20s, rise again in the 30s into the 50s, down again, then back up in the late 60′ and 70’sDAVID_ORTIZ down in the 90s and up again around 2000 where they’ve stayed and reversed the curse.  But if you dig into the individual lines, you can learn a lot.

I want to minimize the impact of short term performance – a lucky year or two.  From 1937 to 1958 the Red Sox were a very competitive team.  During that period, they fell below .500 only 4 times and 1943, 1945 and 1954 were the only years where Boston was more than a 10 games under .500.  Yet the 5 year data moves dramatically due to the impact of 1943 and 45. Around 1943 the 5yr line (blue) moves down for several years whereas the 10 yr line (red) flattens but does not dive down and the 20 yr line continues to rise.  The overall fortunes of the Red Sox did not change during those few years – they simply had a few lean years brought on, in this case, by Ted Williams, among others, being in the military.  So the 5-year data is too noisy for my purposes.  It is, however, helpful for me to identify short term swings and it more accurately pinpoints exactly when fortunes changed.  So I will save that dataset and continue to refer to it, but it will not be the primary source of analysis.

I also want to accurately see when fortunes change.  The major turnaround in Boston history occurred in the early 1930s.  From 1922 to 1933 the Red Sox averaged 41 games under .500 per year.  This was definitely the nadir of the franchise.  In 1934 the BoSox played .500 ball and did not again have 2 consecutive years under .500 until 1959-60. Ted-Williams-RedSox  But if you look at the lines, the 20 year data doesn’t show this uptick until 1939, which is very late.  The 10 year data shows the uptick start right at 1934, which is exactly right, and it continues on a consistent upswing not impacted by the occasional bad year.  So I won’t be using the 20 yr data either as it has too much of a delay.  However, the 20 yr data  is nice and smooth and allows me to quickly identify broad movements by franchises, so I’ll save that one, too.

Therefore, I plan to use the rolling 10 year data as my primary dataset for identifying long term success and failure.  Applying this lens to the Red Sox, what do we see?  We see four periods of success and 2 period of failure.  The four periods of success are:

  • 1909-1920 – (263 games over .500 for the period ending 1918) – Tris Speaker, Smokey Joe Wood, Babe Ruth
  • 1934-1957 – (+206 to 1955) – Ted Williams
  • 1967-1986 – (+181 to 1979) –  Yaz, Fisk, Lynn, Rice, Evans, BoggsFisk
  • 2001-present – (+244 to 2011)  Pedro, Manny, Ortiz
The periods of failure are:
  • 1919-1933 – (-444 to 1932) this is extreme failure.
  • 1956-1966 – (-115 to 1966) – post Williams malaise.

These numbers are interesting in that we can quickly see which were Boston’s most dominant years.  Looks like Babe and Tris have it over Big Papi and Pedro, though not by much.  But without any comparables it’s hard to tell if 263 games over .500 is great or just really good.

On the failure side, the depression-era Red Sox had by far the worst run for Boston, and 444 games under .500 over 10 seasons seems like it would be up competitive as far as worst 10 year periods of all time.  That’s an average of 44 games under and out of 154 games that’s a record of 55-99, every year, for ten years(!).

But we’ll need to compare this to all the other franchises before we can come up with what’s Great and what’s Horrible.  We’ll talk about that next time.

“Built to Win” or “Bats, Gloves and Bucks”

Several months ago I was looking at Hall of Stats, a site you can just get lost on (in a good way) and noticed something interesting on the team pages. I was looking at the Indians and the Browns/Orioles franchise pages.    The team pages shows when each franchises’ top 20 players played and graphically displays their annual WAR.

Here is the Cleveland franchise history:

Image

And here is the St Louis Browns / Baltimore Orioles history

Image

Notice anything striking comparing these two charts? Particularly the top graphs in each history?  What stands out to me is that most of Cleveland’s best players played before 1955 while almost all of Baltimore’s best played after 1955.  In fact, it almost looks like the teams literally switched places.  As if the Indians moved to Baltimore while the Browns replaced them in Cleveland.

To really demonstrate I combined the franchise graphs below.  First, here’s Cleveland morphing into Baltimore

Clevaland to Baltimore

And here is St Louis morphing into Cleveland

StLouis to Cleveland

The top franchise looks dominant, almost Yankee-like, whereas the bottom franchise would have been lucky to crack 70 wins.

But why?  What happened to Cleveland, a successful, if not dominant, franchise for decades, that made them suddenly fall apart and no longer be able to develop or keep quality players.  And what happened to the Orioles?  This franchise, which in St Louis had been a laughingstock for basically it’s entire existence, moves to Baltimore and suddenly, magically, becomes one of the model franchises of the 2nd half of the century.  Why?

Why do some franchises succeed over long periods of time while others fail consistently for years and years.

Let me give you another example.  Philadelphia.  And not just the Phillies but the Athletics, too.  In the first half of the century no city suffered more in baseball than Philadelphia.  Besides two short periods of success for the Athletics, Philadelphia baseball was tragic until at least 1950 and you could argue it extended all the way to 1976.  The move of the Athletics to Kansas City was almost merciful to the fans of Philly, at least it cut their losses in half!  But why?  What did Philly not have that other cities seemed to have? 

And if you don’t think Philly was that bad, here are some numbers.  From 1918 through 1949 the Philadelphia teams averaged 24.8 games UNDER .500.  And that’s per team season.  So combined the city averaged almost 50 games under .500!  Think you had it tough, Chicago?  During the same period your teams averaged 0.6 games under .500.     Even during the 87 years between your 1917 and 2005 championships Chicago’s teams only averaged slightly less than 2 games under .500.  Boston from the year after the 1918 Red Sox championship to when the Braves left town in 1953 only averaged 12 games under .500.  St Louis, during the 53 years in which it had 2 teams averaged 7 1/2 games under .500 and during that period the Cardinals averaged 5 games over .500 – so blame the aforementioned Browns.

So let’s all agree that Philadelphia had it worst. But why?

That’s what I hope to find out.

If you like baseball history, I hope you’ll like what I put together here. And if you have ideas, comment here or on Twitter -> @the2nddivision .