At the start of the World Series, we baseball fans were giddy after witnessing two exciting League Championship Series, both of which went the distance, seven games, and were packed with exciting twists and turns, heroes and goats. The LCS round couldn't have ended any more dramatically than the eleventh-hour, eleventh-inning walk-off homer from unlikely pinch-hit hero Aaron Boone.

The sports media, which had been promulgating an All-Curse World Series, had to switch gears quickly and latched onto the idea that this was the closest of times, the best of times for playoffs baseball. Fox and ESPN both were telling us that the 2003 playoffs were among the closest of all time. Joe Buck told us that in the first two rounds 32 of a possible 34 games had actually been played—that is if all series went to their maximum number of games. The media evidently felt the David v. Goliath angle was too. Or maybe they have to justify the Elias Sport Bureau budget. Anyway, this analysis cum sales approach boded well for an exciting World Series we were told—or at least we were left to infer it.

But, A funny thing happened on the way to the closest playoffs in history. Suddenly it was last call for us excitement-inebriated fans. The party was over as Don Merdith was wont to sing amid cocktails in the Monday Night Football booth. A group of relative unknowns were the champs—"Look, Chauncy, that nice Pudgy fellow is playing on a new baseball nine. Oh, dear me, that Tim McCarver says the most original things!" This is a team that Fox Felt compelled to introduce us to I the first round.

The World Series was more of a hangover, or a hanging curveball, then a continuation of the Herculean, late-innings feats. It was like releasing a new Star Wars movie or two after 20 years and having it be a complete stinker. Boy, I'm glad that hasn't happened (Or "Yar, mes so so happy no flippity-floop-floop," in Jar-Jar Binks speak).

It started with such promise, too, with a one-run size-'em-upper in the opener. Then the Yankees grabbed a seemingly commanding two-games-to-one lead with two 6-1 victories, albeit with late-innings rallies to secure the second one. The Yankees then trailed for the next three games and the spoils went to the Marlins. The Yankees did tie up game four with some late-inning heroics, only to call on Jeff Weaver to Calvin Schiraldi the game away along with all excitement for the rest of the Series.

Amid the toasting of Jack McKeon, whom most of America wouldn't know from Jack Bauer, who Fox ensured would have more of a presence in the playoffs, and the speculation over who George Steinbrenner would vivisect first, the story of the closest playoffs ever got lost in the shuffle. I guess that's what a six-game World Series will do.

However, I think this postseason was remarkable in many ways and contained some classic series. It's too bad that, like a John Grisham novel/movie (since they are one in the same), the finale couldn't live up to the hype of the setup. But that shouldn't condemn the entire postseason, one that many were calling the most exciting they had witnessed in many a year, to obscurity. Even the tepid World Series had some interesting points that should be considered before we close the book on the year and enjoy the excitement of the free agent season—Ooh, who will win the John Flaherty sweepstakes!

(Be forewarned that the following contains many numbers many of which are organized into (gasp!) tables. Proceed at your own risk.)

First, let's start with the Series. One obvious thing that is remarkable about it is that the Yankees outscored the Marlins 21 to 17 and still lost in six games. Well, in 106 championship games—that includes World Series and nineteenth century championships—there have been 22, including 2003's, in which the loser outscored the winner.

Here is a yearly scoring breakdown for the World Series (Notes: RF=Runs For (Winner), RA=Runs Against (Loser), and MOV= Margin of Victory):

Yr	RA	RF	Diff	G	RF/G	RA/G	Avg MOV
1884	21	3	18	3	7.00	1.00	6.00
1885	38	36	2	7	5.43	5.14	0.29
1886	38	28	10	6	6.33	4.67	1.67
1887	73	54	19	15	4.87	3.60	1.27
1888	64	60	4	10	6.40	6.00	0.40
1889	73	52	21	9	8.11	5.78	2.33
1890	42	32	10	7	6.00	4.57	1.43
1903	39	24	15	8	4.88	3.00	1.88
1905	15	3	12	5	3.00	0.60	2.40
1906	22	18	4	6	3.67	3.00	0.67
1907	19	6	13	5	3.80	1.20	2.60
1908	24	15	9	5	4.80	3.00	1.80
1909	34	28	6	7	4.86	4.00	0.86
1910	35	15	20	5	7.00	3.00	4.00
1911	27	13	14	6	4.50	2.17	2.33
1912	25	31	-6	8	3.13	3.88	-0.75
1913	23	15	8	5	4.60	3.00	1.60
1914	16	6	10	4	4.00	1.50	2.50
1915	12	10	2	5	2.40	2.00	0.40
1916	21	13	8	5	4.20	2.60	1.60
1917	21	17	4	6	3.50	2.83	0.67
1918	9	10	-1	6	1.50	1.67	-0.17
1919	35	20	15	8	4.38	2.50	1.88
1920	21	8	13	7	3.00	1.14	1.86
1921	29	22	7	8	3.63	2.75	0.88
1922	18	11	7	5	3.60	2.20	1.40
1923	30	17	13	6	5.00	2.83	2.17
1924	26	27	-1	7	3.71	3.86	-0.14
1925	25	26	-1	7	3.57	3.71	-0.14
1926	31	21	10	7	4.43	3.00	1.43
1927	23	10	13	4	5.75	2.50	3.25
1928	27	10	17	4	6.75	2.50	4.25
1929	26	17	9	5	5.20	3.40	1.80
1930	21	12	9	6	3.50	2.00	1.50
1931	19	22	-3	7	2.71	3.14	-0.43
1932	37	19	18	4	9.25	4.75	4.50
1933	16	11	5	5	3.20	2.20	1.00
1934	34	23	11	7	4.86	3.29	1.57
1935	21	18	3	6	3.50	3.00	0.50
1936	43	23	20	6	7.17	3.83	3.33
1937	28	12	16	5	5.60	2.40	3.20
1938	22	9	13	4	5.50	2.25	3.25
1939	20	8	12	4	5.00	2.00	3.00
1940	22	28	-6	7	3.14	4.00	-0.86
1941	17	11	6	5	3.40	2.20	1.20
1942	23	18	5	5	4.60	3.60	1.00
1943	17	9	8	5	3.40	1.80	1.60
1944	16	12	4	6	2.67	2.00	0.67
1945	32	29	3	7	4.57	4.14	0.43
1946	28	20	8	7	4.00	2.86	1.14
1947	38	29	9	7	5.43	4.14	1.29
1948	17	17	0	6	2.83	2.83	0.00
1949	21	14	7	5	4.20	2.80	1.40
1950	11	5	6	4	2.75	1.25	1.50
1951	29	18	11	6	4.83	3.00	1.83
1952	26	20	6	7	3.71	2.86	0.86
1953	33	27	6	6	5.50	4.50	1.00
1954	21	9	12	4	5.25	2.25	3.00
1955	31	26	5	7	4.43	3.71	0.71
1956	33	25	8	7	4.71	3.57	1.14
1957	23	25	-2	7	3.29	3.57	-0.29
1958	29	25	4	7	4.14	3.57	0.57
1959	21	23	-2	6	3.50	3.83	-0.33
1960	27	55	-28	7	3.86	7.86	-4.00
1961	27	13	14	5	5.40	2.60	2.80
1962	20	21	-1	7	2.86	3.00	-0.14
1963	12	4	8	4	3.00	1.00	2.00
1964	32	33	-1	7	4.57	4.71	-0.14
1965	24	20	4	7	3.43	2.86	0.57
1966	13	2	11	4	3.25	0.50	2.75
1967	25	21	4	7	3.57	3.00	0.57
1968	34	27	7	7	4.86	3.86	1.00
1969	15	9	6	5	3.00	1.80	1.20
1970	33	20	13	5	6.60	4.00	2.60
1971	23	24	-1	7	3.29	3.43	-0.14
1972	16	21	-5	7	2.29	3.00	-0.71
1973	21	24	-3	7	3.00	3.43	-0.43
1974	16	11	5	5	3.20	2.20	1.00
1975	29	30	-1	7	4.14	4.29	-0.14
1976	22	8	14	4	5.50	2.00	3.50
1977	26	28	-2	6	4.33	4.67	-0.33
1978	36	23	13	6	6.00	3.83	2.17
1979	32	26	6	7	4.57	3.71	0.86
1980	27	23	4	6	4.50	3.83	0.67
1981	27	22	5	6	4.50	3.67	0.83
1982	39	33	6	7	5.57	4.71	0.86
1983	18	9	9	5	3.60	1.80	1.80
1984	23	16	7	5	4.60	3.20	1.40
1985	28	13	15	7	4.00	1.86	2.14
1986	33	27	6	7	4.71	3.86	0.86
1987	38	26	12	7	5.43	3.71	1.71
1988	21	11	10	5	4.20	2.20	2.00
1989	32	14	18	4	8.00	3.50	4.50
1990	22	9	13	4	5.50	2.25	3.25
1991	24	29	-5	7	3.43	4.14	-0.71
1992	17	20	-3	6	2.83	3.33	-0.50
1993	45	36	9	6	7.50	6.00	1.50
1995	23	19	4	6	3.83	3.17	0.67
1996	17	26	-9	6	2.83	4.33	-1.50
1997	37	44	-7	7	5.29	6.29	-1.00
1998	26	13	13	4	6.50	3.25	3.25
1999	21	9	12	4	5.25	2.25	3.00
2000	19	16	3	5	3.80	3.20	0.60
2001	37	14	23	7	5.29	2.00	3.29
2002	41	44	-3	7	5.86	6.29	-0.43
2003	17	21	-4	6	2.83	3.50	-0.67
Total	2846	2139	707	641	4.44	3.34	1.10

Note that even though the winner has only been outscored only 22 times or about one out of every five Series, it has happened six times in the last 12 World Series. That's odd. I wonder if the high scoring of the last decade or so make it more likely that a team, even the eventual Series loser, will have a lopsided victory or two in a series. Or can expansion have so depleted the staffs of even the eventual champ to such a degree that even they are prone to a big loss or two in a short series.

Another thing of note is that the Marlins did not score a heck of a lot of runs. The Marlin's 2.86 runs per game match the 1992 Blue Jays and '96 Yankees for the lowest in a winning effort since the A's in 1972 (2.29 runs per game). It's also one of a handful of cases all-time in which winning teams scored fewer than 3 runs per game in the Series.

It kind of reminds me of another unlikely Yankee World Series loss. I am, of course, referring to the famous 1960 World Series, that witnessed the Yankees outscoring the Pirates by an average of 4 runs per game and still losing. That is the largest average margin of victory in the World Series for a losing team. It included Yankee wins of 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0. The Pirates won four games by a grand total of seven runs (6-4, 3-2, 5-2, 10-9). The 1960 Yankees 7.86 runs per game were and still are the most ever by a losing team.

Another thing I found interesting about this postseason was the number of teams that won series against teams with better record in the regular season. In the Division Series, Florida (91-71) beat San Francisco (100-61), the Cubs (88-74) beat the Braves (101-61), and the Red Sox (95-67) beat the A's (96-66). That's three "upsets" in four series. The League Championships did feature an upset with wild-card Marlins beating division winner Chicago. However, for the sake of this study, the Marlins were the "favorites" given their record was two games better than the Cubs during the season. The final "upset" came, of course, in the World Series when the Marlins beat a Yankee team that was its superior by ten full games during the regular season.

That makes four series out of seven won by the team with the inferior record in 2003. This was also the third of four World Series since 2000 in which the "inferior" team lost. Since 2000 only one winning team in the eight NL Division Series has had a superior record. The AL has had just two of eight. Adding an extra round of playoffs especially a very short one seems to be throwing up a major stumbling block for teams that have superior records.

Maybe that's an obvious statement but I just thought an historical comparison would be useful. Here's a table per decade and playoff round of the records of the teams with better records in each series and the winning percentage of each:

Decade	round	Win	Lose	PCT
1880s	WS	2	4	33.33%
1890s	CS	1	0	100.00%
1890s	WS	1	0	100.00%
1900s	WS	5	1	83.33%
1910s	WS	5	5	50.00%
1920s	WS	5	5	50.00%
1930s	WS	6	4	60.00%
1940s	WS	7	3	70.00%
1950s	WS	4	6	40.00%
1960s	ALCS	1	4	20.00%
1960s	NLCS	1	0	100.00%
1960s	WS	4	6	40.00%
1970s	ALCS	6	0	100.00%
1970s	NLCS	7	3	70.00%
1970s	WS	6	4	60.00%
1980s	ALCS	5	5	50.00%
1980s	ALDIV	1	1	50.00%
1980s	NLDIV	2	0	100.00%
1980s	NLCS	5	5	50.00%
1980s	WS	5	5	50.00%
1990s	ALCS	8	1	88.89%
1990s	ALDS	6	4	60.00%
1990s	NLCS	4	5	44.44%
1990s	NLDS	7	3	70.00%
1990s	WS	3	6	33.33%
2000s	ALCS	2	2	50.00%
2000s	ALDS	2	6	25.00%
2000s	NLCS	2	2	50.00%
2000s	NLDS	1	7	12.50%
2000s	WS	1	3	25.00%

Actually, the Yankees were the first team with the best team in their league to represent that league in the World Series since 1999 when The Yankees and the Braves faced off. 1999 was also the last year in which the teams with the best records in their respective leagues met in the World Series. Before expansion the best teams from each league went to the World Series automatically. Since the addition of the wild card, only twice have the best teams from each league met in the World Series (1995 Braves-Indians being the other).

As far as the team with the best record winning the whole enchilada, that hasn't happened since 114-win 1998 Yankees. And that was the only time in the wild card era that the team with the best record in baseball won the World Series.

Here's a breakdown by era of World Series winner and losers, whether they has their leagues' best record, individually and as a pair, and the number of times that the World Series winner has the majors' best record. The eras are pre-expansion (prior to 1969), expansion (1969-2003 inclusive), and then the expansion era broken down thusly: 5-game LCS (1969-84), 7-game LCS (1985-93), and wild card (1995 to today).

Era	W Lg Best?	L Lg Best?	W MLB Best?	Two Best in WS	#Yrs	WS Winner Best PCT	Two Best in WS PCT
Pre-Exp	72	72	38	72	72	52.78%	100.00%
Exp	18	17	8	11	33	24.24%	33.33%
LCS 5 G	10	8	5	7	16	31.25%	43.75%
LCS 7 G	5	6	2	2	9	22.22%	22.22%
WC	3	4	1	2	9	11.11%	22.22%
Total	90	89	46	83	105	43.81%	79.05%

For those of us who want to see the best teams in the World Series, to quote Austin Powers, "That train has sailed." The odd thing is that the dropoff happened after the League Championships were expanded to seven games. One of the major complaints of the wild card is that the Divisional Series are too short, thereby allowing a "hot" or lucky team to beat a superior team. The thinking is to lengthen the series to seven games thereby legitimizing the winners even if the cost is shortening the schedule to 154 games to accommodate the additional playoff games. The only problem is that when the LCSs were expanded from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven, fewer regular-season "champs" made it to the World Series. This is a very small sample (15 years) and luck could be the explanation, but the data certainly don't support expanding the wild card round for any reason other than aesthetics.

Now, as far as the 2003 postseason, taken as a whole, to complete the thought that Joe Buck kept repeating at the beginning of the World Series, 38 of a possible 41 games or 92.68% were played this year. That's three games more than the previous high, 35 in 2001. The last time a higher percentage of possible playoff games were actually played was in 1985-86 when 95.24% (20 of 21) were played both years. The only expansion-era postseasons that are higher are the 1972-73 seasons in which all possible games were played (17 of 17).

Here's a comparison by era (note that the games possible for the pre-expansion era is above 7 because of a few nine-game series—1903, '19-21):

Yr	Rds	G	G Possible	G/Rd	%played
1884	1	3		3.00
1885	1	7		7.00
1886	1	6		6.00
1887	1	15		15.00
1888	1	10		10.00
1889	1	9		9.00
1890	1	7		7.00
1892	1	6		6.00
1903	1	8	9	8.00	88.89%
1905	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1906	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1907	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1908	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1909	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1910	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1911	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1912	1	8	7	8.00	114.29%
1913	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1914	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1915	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1916	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1917	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1918	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1919	1	8	9	8.00	88.89%
1920	1	7	9	7.00	77.78%
1921	1	8	9	8.00	88.89%
1922	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1923	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1924	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1925	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1926	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1927	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1928	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1929	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1930	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1931	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1932	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1933	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1934	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1935	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1936	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1937	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1938	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1939	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1940	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1941	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1942	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1943	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1944	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1945	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1946	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1947	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1948	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1949	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1950	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1951	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1952	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1953	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1954	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1955	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1956	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1957	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1958	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1959	1	6	7	6.00	85.71%
1960	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1961	1	5	7	5.00	71.43%
1962	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1963	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1964	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1965	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1966	1	4	7	4.00	57.14%
1967	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1968	1	7	7	7.00	100.00%
1969	3	11	17	3.67	64.71%
1970	3	11	17	3.67	64.71%
1971	3	14	17	4.67	82.35%
1972	3	17	17	5.67	100.00%
1973	3	17	17	5.67	100.00%
1974	3	13	17	4.33	76.47%
1975	3	13	17	4.33	76.47%
1976	3	12	17	4.00	70.59%
1977	3	15	17	5.00	88.24%
1978	3	14	17	4.67	82.35%
1979	3	14	17	4.67	82.35%
1980	3	14	17	4.67	82.35%
1981	7	32	37	4.57	86.49%
1982	3	15	17	5.00	88.24%
1983	3	13	17	4.33	76.47%
1984	3	13	17	4.33	76.47%
1985	3	20	21	6.67	95.24%
1986	3	20	21	6.67	95.24%
1987	3	19	21	6.33	90.48%
1988	3	16	21	5.33	76.19%
1989	3	14	21	4.67	66.67%
1990	3	14	21	4.67	66.67%
1991	3	19	21	6.33	90.48%
1992	3	19	21	6.33	90.48%
1993	3	18	21	6.00	85.71%
1995	7	31	41	4.43	75.61%
1996	7	32	41	4.57	78.05%
1997	7	34	41	4.86	82.93%
1998	7	30	41	4.29	73.17%
1999	7	31	41	4.43	75.61%
2000	7	31	41	4.43	75.61%
2001	7	35	41	5.00	85.37%
2002	7	34	41	4.86	82.93%
2003	7	38	41	5.43	92.68%
19th C	1	7.88	N/A	7.88	N/A
WS only	1	5.91	7.12	5.91	82.94%
5-G LCS	3	13.73	17.00	4.58	80.78%
Strike	7	32.00	37.00	4.57	86.49%
7-G LCS	3	17.67	21.00	5.89	84.13%
Wild card	7	33.40	41.00	4.77	81.46%

You may have noticed a trend that as each newly-imposed playoff structure is imposed, the percentages seem to drop and then gradually and frenetically increase.

From 1955 to 1968, ten of fourteen World Series went the distance. In 1969 the League Championship Round was added and in the first two years the losing teams in the LCSs won a total of zero games against 12 losses. The World Series were won those years in five games. In the first three years, they won one game against 18 losses, but by the third season the World Series went a full seven games. Suddenly, the League Championships went the distance for the next two years and so did the World Series.

The same thing seemed to happen after the wild card round was added in 1995, though 1985-86 when the LCSs were increased to seven games experienced the opposite effect.

Now, of course you're going to say that this is an incredible small sample and it's all just luck. Well, maybe but it would like to theorize that it takes teams a year or two adjust to playoff changes that tend to level the playing field. If you graph out the percentage of teams that have a .500 or better record, you will see a dropoff every time there is an expansion in either the playoff field or the expansion rounds. This seems to be counter-intuitive as more teams would see an opportunity to make a World Series run. For example, 1994, the first year of the wild card system (though there were no playoffs due to the strike), has the lowest percentage of winning teams in baseball history (35.71%). 2003 saw 60% of the major-league teams registering a winning record, the highest percentage since 1991.

In a few years of the playoff expansion, they percentage of winning teams is high again, though it seems to be telescoping down with each expansion. Could it be that it takes a few seasons for the teams to adjust to the new playoff structure? More teams feel capable of advancing to and in the playoffs but perhaps the realization takes a few years. You see more toying with teams in order to fill holes than ever now. It used to be about bettering yourself for the playoffs. Billy Beane still does this, but a number of teams just rent a decent player to fill a hole. Look at the Cubs revamping their offense with rented players from the Pirates. The Marlins filled a whole in left by grabbing Conine, fixed their bullpen problems with Fox and Urbina. When I was a kid, the Phils grabbed Bake McBride to replace Jay Johnstone, who was a solid veteran. The Phils were trying to improve. Teams now seem to be filling holes mid-season. They aren't looking for great players. They're just minimizing liabilities. Payroll slashing is becoming more and more an issue. So you have the teams picking up other teams mistakes at the deadlines.

It's just a theory. I'm not sure if there is anything more than luck involved. There was a large increase in the number of non-losing teams this year—maybe teams were inspired to try to contend after seeing the once –lowly Angels win it all. Maybe the Yankee and Brave dynasties are perceived to have weakened and more teams feel emboldened to contend. Maybe nothing other than luck was involved. I'm not sure, but it’s something that I am going to be watching for next season.

OK, so back to this season. How close were the playoffs anyway? Here is a table with the average wins and losses per series per year as well as the average run differential:

Yr	Rounds	W	W/Rd	L	L/Rd	Avg W-L	Win R	R/G	Lose R	R/G	R Diff
1884	1	3	3.00	0	0.00	3.00	21	7.00	3	1.00	6.00
1885	1	3	3.00	3	3.00	0.00	38	6.33	36	6.00	0.33
1886	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	38	6.33	28	4.67	1.67
1887	1	10	10.00	5	5.00	5.00	73	4.87	54	3.60	1.27
1888	1	6	6.00	4	4.00	2.00	64	6.40	60	6.00	0.40
1889	1	6	6.00	3	3.00	3.00	73	8.11	52	5.78	2.33
1890	1	3	3.00	3	3.00	0.00	42	7.00	32	5.33	1.67
1892	1	5	5.00	0	0.00	5.00	25	5.00	15	3.00	2.00
1903	1	5	5.00	3	3.00	2.00	39	4.88	24	3.00	1.88
1905	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	15	3.00	3	0.60	2.40
1906	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	22	3.67	18	3.00	0.67
1907	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	19	4.75	6	1.50	3.25
1908	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	24	4.80	15	3.00	1.80
1909	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	34	4.86	28	4.00	0.86
1910	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	35	7.00	15	3.00	4.00
1911	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	27	4.50	13	2.17	2.33
1912	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	25	3.57	31	4.43	-0.86
1913	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	23	4.60	15	3.00	1.60
1914	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	16	4.00	6	1.50	2.50
1915	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	12	2.40	10	2.00	0.40
1916	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	21	4.20	13	2.60	1.60
1917	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	21	3.50	17	2.83	0.67
1918	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	9	1.50	10	1.67	-0.17
1919	1	5	5.00	3	3.00	2.00	35	4.38	20	2.50	1.88
1920	1	5	5.00	2	2.00	3.00	21	3.00	8	1.14	1.86
1921	1	5	5.00	3	3.00	2.00	29	3.63	22	2.75	0.88
1922	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	18	4.50	11	2.75	1.75
1923	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	30	5.00	17	2.83	2.17
1924	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	26	3.71	27	3.86	-0.14
1925	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	25	3.57	26	3.71	-0.14
1926	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	31	4.43	21	3.00	1.43
1927	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	23	5.75	10	2.50	3.25
1928	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	27	6.75	10	2.50	4.25
1929	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	26	5.20	17	3.40	1.80
1930	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	21	3.50	12	2.00	1.50
1931	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	19	2.71	22	3.14	-0.43
1932	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	37	9.25	19	4.75	4.50
1933	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	16	3.20	11	2.20	1.00
1934	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	34	4.86	23	3.29	1.57
1935	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	21	3.50	18	3.00	0.50
1936	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	43	7.17	23	3.83	3.33
1937	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	28	5.60	12	2.40	3.20
1938	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	22	5.50	9	2.25	3.25
1939	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	20	5.00	8	2.00	3.00
1940	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	22	3.14	28	4.00	-0.86
1941	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	17	3.40	11	2.20	1.20
1942	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	23	4.60	18	3.60	1.00
1943	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	17	3.40	9	1.80	1.60
1944	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	16	2.67	12	2.00	0.67
1945	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	32	4.57	29	4.14	0.43
1946	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	28	4.00	20	2.86	1.14
1947	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	38	5.43	29	4.14	1.29
1948	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	17	2.83	17	2.83	0.00
1949	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	21	4.20	14	2.80	1.40
1950	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	11	2.75	5	1.25	1.50
1951	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	29	4.83	18	3.00	1.83
1952	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	26	3.71	20	2.86	0.86
1953	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	33	5.50	27	4.50	1.00
1954	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	21	5.25	9	2.25	3.00
1955	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	31	4.43	26	3.71	0.71
1956	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	33	4.71	25	3.57	1.14
1957	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	23	3.29	25	3.57	-0.29
1958	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	29	4.14	25	3.57	0.57
1959	1	4	4.00	2	2.00	2.00	21	3.50	23	3.83	-0.33
1960	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	27	3.86	55	7.86	-4.00
1961	1	4	4.00	1	1.00	3.00	27	5.40	13	2.60	2.80
1962	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	20	2.86	21	3.00	-0.14
1963	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	12	3.00	4	1.00	2.00
1964	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	32	4.57	33	4.71	-0.14
1965	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	24	3.43	20	2.86	0.57
1966	1	4	4.00	0	0.00	4.00	13	3.25	2	0.50	2.75
1967	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	25	3.57	21	3.00	0.57
1968	1	4	4.00	3	3.00	1.00	34	4.86	27	3.86	1.00
1969	3	10	3.33	1	0.33	3.00	58	5.27	29	2.64	2.64
1970	3	10	3.33	1	0.33	3.00	69	6.27	33	3.00	3.27
1971	3	10	3.33	4	1.33	2.00	62	4.43	46	3.29	1.14
1972	3	10	3.33	7	2.33	1.00	48	2.82	46	2.71	0.12
1973	3	10	3.33	7	2.33	1.00	59	3.47	47	2.76	0.71
1974	3	10	3.33	3	1.00	2.33	47	3.62	28	2.15	1.46
1975	3	10	3.33	3	1.00	2.33	66	5.08	44	3.38	1.69
1976	3	10	3.33	2	0.67	2.67	64	5.33	43	3.58	1.75
1977	3	10	3.33	5	1.67	1.67	69	4.60	64	4.27	0.33
1978	3	10	3.33	4	1.33	2.00	76	5.43	57	4.07	1.36
1979	3	10	3.33	4	1.33	2.00	73	5.21	46	3.29	1.93
1980	3	10	3.33	4	1.33	2.00	61	4.36	48	3.43	0.93
1981	7	22	3.14	10	1.43	1.71	120	3.75	71	2.22	1.53
1982	3	10	3.33	5	1.67	1.67	79	5.27	61	4.07	1.20
1983	3	10	3.33	3	1.00	2.33	53	4.08	20	1.54	2.54
1984	3	10	3.33	3	1.00	2.33	59	4.54	46	3.54	1.00
1985	3	12	4.00	8	2.67	1.33	83	4.15	61	3.05	1.10
1986	3	12	4.00	8	2.67	1.33	95	4.75	74	3.70	1.05
1987	3	12	4.00	7	2.33	1.67	95	5.00	72	3.79	1.21
1988	3	12	4.00	4	1.33	2.67	72	4.50	49	3.06	1.44
1989	3	12	4.00	2	0.67	3.33	88	6.29	57	4.07	2.21
1990	3	12	4.00	2	0.67	3.33	62	4.43	28	2.00	2.43
1991	3	12	4.00	7	2.33	1.67	70	3.68	60	3.16	0.53
1992	3	12	4.00	7	2.33	1.67	82	4.32	79	4.16	0.16
1993	3	12	4.00	6	2.00	2.00	94	5.22	92	5.11	0.11
1995	7	24	3.43	7	1.00	2.43	166	5.35	101	3.26	2.10
1996	7	24	3.43	8	1.14	2.29	154	4.81	114	3.56	1.25
1997	7	24	3.43	10	1.43	2.00	153	4.50	132	3.88	0.62
1998	7	24	3.43	6	0.86	2.57	133	4.43	84	2.80	1.63
1999	7	24	3.43	7	1.00	2.43	169	5.45	115	3.71	1.74
2000	7	24	3.43	7	1.00	2.43	151	4.87	106	3.42	1.45
2001	7	24	3.43	11	1.57	1.86	142	4.06	107	3.06	1.00
2002	7	24	3.43	10	1.43	2.00	195	5.74	155	4.56	1.18
2003	7	24	3.43	14	2.00	1.43	157	4.13	145	3.82	0.32

Note that this season's 0.32 run differential per payoff game is the lowest of the wild card era. Witness the increases in 1969 and 1995 after the playoffs were expanded. It seems that the losing teams are much better prepared today than they were right after the wild card round was added. This may be some more evidence that supports my playoff theory.

OK, we're just about done. There's just one more thing to check out: what was the closest series of all time? To qualify the series has to go the distance. Whether that's five, seven, or nine games, I don't care. However, I don't want to include a four-game sweep that consists of four 1-0 games. Yes, each game is as close as it gets, but taken as a whole those series are not as close, in my opinion, as a seven-game series won by a 10-0 score in the final game.

Next, we want to look at run differential throughout the series. How close were those games? A seven-game series in which one team outscores the other by just lone run is closer than a bunch of lopsided victories in a series that happens to go seven games.

To hone that down a bit more, we will look at average margin of victory (MoV). The run differential over a series is important but trading lopsided victories can make the games of a series seem closer than they were. Average margin of victory will break down the run differentials into individual games. For example, Series A features Team One vs. Team Two. Team One wins the series with the following game scores 1-0, 1-3, 8-7, 4-6, 3-1, 2-4, and 2-0. The run differential is nil (i.e., both have 21 runs) and the avg. MoV is 1.71 runs (i.e., a 12 run difference in seven games). Now consider series B with Teams Three and Four: 10-2, 1-9, 6-0, 5-11, 7-4, 2-6, and 1-0. Again the run differential is zero, but the avg. MoV is 5.14. Which would you consider a closer series?

Finally, let's look at margin of victory in the final game and extra innings games/innings. Obviously, when we think about close series, we remember the one-run seventh-game victories like the Yankees over the Red Sox in this year's ALCS rather than the Royals beating the Cardinals 11-0 in the seventh game of the 1985 World Series. Also, if the final game goes into extra innings (again like this year's ALCS), that's even better. If there are extra inning games during the series that's just an indication of how close the games were played.

First, here is a table of all playoff series that have gone to the maximum number of games sorted by the run differential:

Note that this season's 0.32 run differential per payoff game is the lowest of the wild card era. Witness the increases in 1969 and 1995 after the playoffs were expanded. It seems that the losing teams are much better prepared today than they were right after the wild card round was added. This may be some more evidence that supports my playoff theory. OK, we're just about done. There's just one more thing to check out: what was the closest series of all time? To qualify the series has to go the distance. Whether that's five, seven, or nine games, I don't care. However, I don't want to include a four-game sweep that consists of four 1-0 games. Yes, each game is as close as it gets, but taken as a whole those series are not as close, in my opinion, as a seven-game series won by a 10-0 score in the final game. Next, we want to look at run differential throughout the series. How close were those games? A seven-game series in which one team outscores the other by just lone run is closer than a bunch of lopsided victories in a series that happens to go seven games. To hone that down a bit more, we will look at average margin of victory (MoV). The run differential over a series is important but trading lopsided victories can make the games of a series seem closer than they were. Average margin of victory will break down the run differentials into individual games. For example, Series A features Team One vs. Team Two. Team One wins the series with the following game scores 1-0, 1-3, 8-7, 4-6, 3-1, 2-4, and 2-0. The run differential is nil (i.e., both have 21 runs) and the avg. MoV is 1.71 runs (i.e., a 12 run difference in seven games). Now consider series B with Teams Three and Four: 10-2, 1-9, 6-0, 5-11, 7-4, 2-6, and 1-0. Again the run differential is zero, but the avg. MoV is 5.14. Which would you consider a closer series? Finally, let's look at margin of victory in the final game and extra innings games/innings. Obviously, when we think about close series, we remember the one-run seventh-game victories like the Yankees over the Red Sox in this year's ALCS rather than the Royals beating the Cardinals 11-0 in the seventh game of the 1985 World Series. Also, if the final game goes into extra innings (again like this year's ALCS), that's even better. If there are extra inning games during the series that's just an indication of how close the games were played. First, here is a table of all playoff series that have gone to the maximum number of games sorted by the run differential:

Year	Round	W	L	T	Winner	R	Loser	R	Diff	Avg MoV	Final game margin	Extra Innings
1973	ALCS	3	2		Oakland	15	Baltimore	15	0	2.80	3	1(2)
1982	ALCS	3	2		Milwaukee	23	California	23	0	2.80	1	0
1987	NLCS	4	3		St. Louis	23	San Francisco	23	0	2.86	6	0
2003	NLCS	4	3		Florida	40	Chicago Cubs	40	0	4.00	3	2(4)
1980	NLCS	3	2		Philadelphia	20	Houston	19	1	1.80	1(10)	3(4)
2003	ALDS2	3	2		Boston	17	Oakland	18	1	1.80	1	2(5)
1924	WS	4	3		Washington	26	NY Giants	27	1	1.86	1(12)	2(6)
1925	WS	4	3		Pitstburgh	25	Washington	26	1	2.14	2	0
1975	WS	4	3		Cincinnati	29	Boston	30	1	2.14	1	2(4)
2003	ALCS	4	3		NY Yankees	30	Boston	29	1	2.14	1(11)	1(2)
1962	WS	4	3		NY Yankees	20	San Francisco	21	1	2.43	1	0
1985	ALCS	4	3		Kansas City	26	Toronto	25	1	2.43	4	1(1)
1976	ALCS	3	2		NY Yankees	23	Kansas City	24	1	2.60	1	0
1964	WS	4	3		St. Louis	32	NY Yankees	33	1	3.00	2	1(1)
1971	WS	4	3		Pitstburgh	23	Baltimore	24	1	3.00	1	1(1)
1977	ALCS	3	2		NY Yankees	21	Kansas City	22	1	3.40	2	0
1992	NLCS	4	3		Atlanta	34	Pitstburgh	35	1	4.43	1	0
2002	ALDS2	3	2		Minnesota	27	Oakland	26	1	4.60	1	0
2001	NLDS2	3	2		Arizona	10	St. Louis	12	2	2.00	1	0
1981	NEDIV	3	2		Montreal	16	Philadelphia	14	2	2.40	3	1(1)
1995	ALDS2	3	2		Seattle	35	NY Yankees	33	2	2.40	1(11)	2(8)
1957	WS	4	3		Milwaukee Braves	23	NY Yankees	25	2	3.14	5	1(1)
2002	NLDS1	3	2		San Francisco	24	Atlanta	26	2	4.40	2	0
1972	ALCS	3	2		Oakland	13	Detroit	10	3	2.20	1	2(3)
1997	ALDS1	3	2		Cleveland	21	NY Yankees	24	3	2.20	1	0
1973	WS	4	3		Oakland	21	NY Mets	24	3	2.43	3	2(5)
1931	WS	4	3		St. Louis Cardinals	19	Philadelphia A's	22	3	3.57	2	0
2002	WS	4	3		Anaheim	41	San Francisco	44	3	3.57	3	0
1945	WS	4	3		Detroit	32	Chicago Cubs	29	3	4.14	6	1(3)
2003	NLDS1	3	2		Chicago Cubs	19	Atlanta	15	4	2.40	4	0
1972	NLCS	3	2		Cincinnati	19	Pitstburgh	15	4	2.60	1	0
1988	NLCS	4	3		Los Angeles	31	NY Mets	27	4	3.14	6	1(3)
1967	WS	4	3		St. Louis	25	Boston	21	4	3.71	5	0
1958	WS	4	3		NY Yankees	29	ML1	25	4	4.00	4	2(2)
2000	ALDS1	3	2		NY Yankees	19	Oakland	23	4	4.00	2	0
1965	WS	4	3		Los Angeles	24	Minnesota	20	4	4.57	2	0
1984	NLCS	3	2		San Diego	22	Chicago Cubs	26	4	5.20	3	0
1972	WS	4	3		Oakland	16	Cincinnati	21	5	1.86	1	0
1991	WS	4	3		Minnesota	24	Atlanta	29	5	2.43	1(10)	3(6)
1955	WS	4	3		Brooklyn	31	NY Yankees	26 Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.