Setting in the West

Each of the two Western Divisions was led for most of the year by one team. Two teams from each division made it to the playoffs and in neither case was it the team that led the division for the majority of the year. Those two teams who did not make the playoffs are the Los Angels Dodgers and Seattle Mariners, as you know. In 2001 the Mariners tied the major-league record for wins with 116 and the Dodgers won a modest 87. This year the totals were much closer: 93 for Seattle, 92 for LA.

Their 2002 record represented a 23-game decline in wins or 142-point decline in winning percentage for the Mariners. I wondered how often a team had had such a large drop-off from one year to the next, so I investigated further. I found out that there have 222 teams in the history of baseball that have had a drop-off off at least 100 percentage points. There were three more this year: the Mariners 142 point, the Cubs 129, and the Indians 105. There have been 96 (including the M's) with a 142-point decline. So without further ado here are the sharpest one-year declines in baseball since Joe Charboneau:

Team         Lg Yr 1   W  L  Pct Yr 2  W   L  Pct  Pct Win 
                                                  Diff Diff
St. Louis    UA 1884  94 19 .832 1885 36  72 .333 .499 58
Philadelphia NA 1875  53 20 .726 1876 14  45 .237 .489 39
Baltimore    NA 1873  34 22 .607 1874  9  38 .191 .416 25
Cleveland    NL 1898  81 68 .544 1899 20 134 .130 .414 61
Philadelphia AL 1914  99 53 .651 1915 43 109 .283 .368 56
Brooklyn     NA 1874  22 33 .400 1875  2  42 .045 .355 20
Chicago      NL 1876  52 14 .788 1877 26  33 .441 .347 26
Buffalo      NL 1879  46 32 .590 1880 24  58 .293 .297 22
New York     AA 1884  75 32 .701 1885 44  64 .407 .294 31
Pittsburgh   NL 1889  61 71 .462 1890 23 113 .169 .293 38
Washington   NA 1871  15 15 .500 1872  2   7 .222 .278 13
Cincinnati   NL 1879  43 37 .537 1880 21  59 .263 .274 22
Louisville   AA 1890  88 44 .667 1891 55  84 .396 .271 33
Boston       NL 1934  78 73 .517 1935 38 115 .248 .269 40
Providence   NL 1884  84 28 .750 1885 53  57 .482 .268 31
Cleveland    NL 1883  55 42 .567 1884 35  77 .312 .255 20
St. Louis    AA 1891  86 52 .623 1892 56  94 .373 .250 30
Boston       NL 1884  73 38 .658 1885 46  66 .411 .247 27
Baltimore    FL 1914  84 70 .545 1915 47 107 .305 .240 37
Buffalo      NL 1884  64 47 .577 1885 38  74 .339 .238 26
St. Louis    NL 1876  45 19 .703 1877 28  32 .467 .236 17
Florida      NL 1997  92 70 .568 1998 54 108 .333 .235 38
Cincinnati   NL 1981  66 42 .611 1982 61 101 .377 .234  5
Cleveland    AL 1913  86 66 .566 1914 51 102 .333 .233 35
Brooklyn     NL 1890  86 43 .667 1891 61  76 .445 .222 25
Chicago      AL 1920  96 58 .623 1921 62  92 .403 .220 34
Baltimore    AA 1884  63 43 .594 1885 41  68 .376 .218 22
Washington   AL 1933  99 53 .651 1934 66  86 .434 .217 33
New York     NA 1874  42 23 .646 1875 30  38 .441 .205 12
Louisville   AA 1887  76 60 .559 1888 48  87 .356 .203 28
New York     NL 1942  85 67 .559 1943 55  98 .359 .200 30
Boston       AL 1905  78 74 .513 1906 49 105 .318 .195 29
Montreal     NL 1994  74 40 .649 1995 66  78 .458 .191  8
Chicago      AL 1917 100 54 .649 1918 57  67 .460 .189 43
Philadelphia AL 1949  81 73 .526 1950 52 102 .338 .188 29
St. Louis    NL 1931 101 53 .656 1932 72  82 .468 .188 29
Los Angeles  NL 1991  93 69 .574 1992 63  99 .389 .185 30
Philadelphia NL 1901  83 57 .593 1902 56  81 .409 .184 27
Pittsburgh   AA 1882  39 39 .500 1883 31  67 .316 .184  8
Cincinnati   NL 1944  89 65 .578 1945 61  93 .396 .182 28
Detroit      AL 1988  88 74 .543 1989 59 103 .364 .179 29
Philadelphia NA 1873  36 17 .679 1874 29  29 .500 .179  7
New York     NL 1889  83 43 .659 1890 63  68 .481 .178 20
Worcester    NL 1881  32 50 .390 1882 18  66 .214 .176 14
Detroit      AL 1919  80 60 .571 1920 61  93 .396 .175 19
Cincinnati   NL 1890  77 55 .583 1891 56  81 .409 .174 21
Oakland      AL 1992  96 66 .593 1993 68  94 .420 .173 28
New York     AL 1911  76 76 .500 1912 50 102 .329 .171 26
Boston       NL 1921  79 74 .516 1922 53 100 .346 .170 26
Boston       NL 1879  54 30 .643 1880 40  44 .476 .167 14
Oakland      AL 1981  64 45 .587 1982 68  94 .420 .167 -4
Washington   AL 1908  67 85 .441 1909 42 110 .276 .165 25
Boston       AL 1942  93 59 .612 1943 68  84 .447 .165 25
Boston       AL 1912 105 47 .691 1913 79  71 .527 .164 26
New York     NL 1894  88 44 .667 1895 66  65 .504 .163 22
Detroit      AL 1901  74 61 .548 1902 52  83 .385 .163 22
Philadelphia AL 1907  88 57 .607 1908 68  85 .444 .163 20
Washington   AL 1918  72 56 .562 1919 56  84 .400 .162 16
Pittsburgh   NL 1909 110 42 .724 1910 86  67 .562 .162 24
Louisville   AA 1888  48 87 .356 1889 27 111 .196 .160 21
San Fran.    NL 1993 103 59 .636 1994 55  60 .478 .158 48
Detroit      NL 1883  40 58 .408 1884 28  84 .250 .158 12
Louisville   AA 1884  68 40 .630 1885 53  59 .473 .157 15
Hartford     NL 1876  47 21 .691 1877 31  27 .534 .157 16
Houston      NL 1999  97 65 .599 2000 72  90 .444 .155 25
Philadelphia AA 1889  75 58 .564 1890 54  78 .409 .155 21
Baltimore    AA 1887  77 58 .570 1888 57  80 .416 .154 20
Chicago      AL 1983  99 63 .611 1984 74  88 .457 .154 25
Brooklyn     NL 1924  92 62 .597 1925 68  85 .444 .153 24
Cincinnati   NL 1919  96 44 .686 1920 82  71 .536 .150 14
Baltimore    AL 1901  68 65 .511 1902 50  88 .362 .149 18
Brooklyn     NL 1903  70 66 .515 1904 56  97 .366 .149 14
Cleveland    AL 1968  86 75 .534 1969 62  99 .385 .149 24
Oakland      AL 1976  87 74 .540 1977 63  98 .391 .149 24
Philadelphia AL 1918  52 76 .406 1919 36 104 .257 .149 16
Detroit      AL 1951  73 81 .474 1952 50 104 .325 .149 23
Texas        AL 1981  57 48 .543 1982 64  98 .395 .148 -7
San Diego    NL 1998  98 64 .605 1999 74  88 .457 .148 24
Texas        AL 1999  95 67 .586 2000 71  91 .438 .148 24
Boston       NL 1899  95 57 .625 1900 66  72 .478 .147 29
Brooklyn     NL 1942 104 50 .675 1943 81  72 .529 .146 23
Brooklyn     NL 1916  94 60 .610 1917 70  81 .464 .146 24
Columbus     AA 1890  79 55 .590 1891 61  76 .445 .145 18
St. Louis    NL 1917  82 70 .539 1918 51  78 .395 .144 31
St. Louis    AL 1916  79 75 .513 1917 57  97 .370 .143 22
Detroit      AL 1950  95 59 .617 1951 73  81 .474 .143 22
Pittsburgh   NL 1951  64 90 .416 1952 42 112 .273 .143 22
Cincinnati   NL 1970 102 60 .630 1971 79  83 .488 .142 23
Cleveland    AL 1986  84 78 .519 1987 61 101 .377 .142 23
California   AL 1982  93 69 .574 1983 70  92 .432 .142 23
Seattle      AL 2001 116 46 .716 2002 93  69 .574 .142 23
New York     NL 1952  92 62 .597 1953 70  84 .455 .142 22
Milwaukee    AL 1992  92 70 .568 1993 69  93 .426 .142 23
Minnesota    AL 1970  98 64 .605 1971 74  86 .463 .142 24
New York     AL 1907  70 78 .473 1908 51 103 .331 .142 19

The largest one-year downturn was recorded by the St. Louis Maroons, who switch from the moribund Union Association to the National League for a couple of years. There are a lot of famous disintegrations on that list: the 1914-15 Philadelphia Athletics that Connie Mack broke up, the 1898-99 Cleveland Spiders that became the worst team in baseball history, the 1997-98 Florida Marlins that were broken up after "buying" a World Series, the 1992-93 Oakland A's that fell from dynasty to doormat in one season, Montreal's 1995 after having their best year cut short by a strike, San Diego's fall from the 1998 World series, and recent declines in Houston (2000) and Texas (2000).

Rob Neyer doesn't seem all that concerned with the Seattle's demise and says they had a good season. Well, I guess it depends on your point of view, but what kind of season can we expect from the M's next year? Let's examine what happened to the teams in our study the next year. Maybe it can shed some light on what to expect from the somewhat mercurial Mariners team for 2003. Well, so many of the teams were from the 19th century when schedules were short, records varied greatly from year to year, and team stability was a large issue (14 of these years never had a next year-they collapsed). Besides a number of these teams were mediocre to begin with a just got downright bad. Seattle went from great to just pretty good. So I altered the study to target those teams that fell from great to good (above .600 winning percentage to above .500 with a one-year .100 decline). Here's what I found (note that the third year is compared against the first):

Team         Lg Yr 1   W  L  Pct Yr 2  W  L  Pct  Pct W  Yr 3   W   L  Pct  Pct Win 
                                                 Diff Diff                 Diff Diff 
Philadelphia NA 1873  36 17 .679 1874 29 29 .500 .179  7 1875  37  31 .544 .135 -1
Boston       AL 1912 105 47 .691 1913 79 71 .527 .164 26 1914  91  62 .595 .096 14
New York     NL 1894  88 44 .667 1895 66 65 .504 .163 22 1896  64  67 .489 .178 24
Pittsburgh   NL 1909 110 42 .724 1910 86 67 .562 .162 24 1911  85  69 .552 .172 25
Cincinnati   NL 1919  96 44 .686 1920 82 71 .536 .150 14 1921  70  83 .458 .228 26
Brooklyn     NL 1942 104 50 .675 1943 81 72 .529 .146 23 1944  63  91 .409 .266 41
Chicago      NL 1886  90 34 .726 1887 71 50 .587 .139 19 1888  77  58 .570 .156 13
Boston       AL 1946 104 50 .675 1947 83 71 .539 .136 21 1948  96  59 .619 .056  8
Philadelphia NA 1872  30 14 .682 1873 28 23 .549 .133  2 1874  33  22 .600 .082 -3
Chicago      NL 1880  67 17 .798 1881 56 28 .667 .131 11 1882  55  29 .655 .143 12
New York     AL 1939 106 45 .702 1940 88 66 .571 .131 18 1941 101  53 .656 .046  5
New York     NL 1885  85 27 .759 1886 75 44 .630 .129 10 1887  68  55 .553 .206 17
Pittsburgh   NL 1893  81 48 .628 1894 65 65 .500 .128 16 1895  71  61 .538 .090 10
New York     NL 1897  83 48 .634 1898 77 73 .513 .121  6 1899  60  90 .400 .234 23
Baltimore    AL 1971 101 57 .639 1972 80 74 .519 .120 21 1973  97  65 .599 .040  4
Detroit      AL 1984 104 58 .642 1985 84 77 .522 .120 20 1986  87  75 .537 .105 17
New York     NL 1913 101 51 .664 1914 84 70 .545 .119 17 1915  69  83 .454 .210 32
Cleveland    AL 1954 111 43 .721 1955 93 61 .604 .117 18 1956  88  66 .571 .150 23
Oakland      AL 1990 103 59 .636 1991 84 78 .519 .117 19 1992  96  66 .593 .043  7
Chicago      NL 1918  84 45 .651 1919 75 65 .536 .115  9 1920  75  79 .487 .164  9
St. Louis    NL 1949  96 58 .623 1950 78 75 .510 .113 18 1951  81  73 .526 .097 15
New York     NL 1954  97 57 .630 1955 80 74 .519 .111 17 1956  67  87 .435 .195 30
Brooklyn     NL 1892  95 59 .617 1893 65 63 .508 .109 30 1894  70  61 .534 .083 25
New York     NL 1969 100 62 .617 1970 83 79 .512 .105 17 1971  83  79 .512 .105 17
Boston       AL 1904  95 59 .617 1905 78 74 .513 .104 17 1906  49 105 .318 .299 46
Cleveland    AL 1921  94 60 .610 1922 78 76 .506 .104 16 1923  82  71 .536 .074 12
St. Louis    NL 1928  95 59 .617 1929 78 74 .513 .104 17 1930  92  62 .597 .020  3
Philadelphia AA 1883  66 32 .673 1884 61 46 .570 .103  5 1885  55  57 .491 .182 11
Boston       NA 1872  39  8 .830 1873 43 16 .729 .101 -4 1874  52  18 .743 .087 -13
Chicago      NL 1945  98 56 .636 1946 82 71 .536 .100 16 1947  69  85 .448 .188 29
Average                     .672            .546 .126 15.7            .534 .138 16
Best                                                                       .020 -13
Worst                                                                      .299 46

None of the teams returned to their first year highs (the closest was 20 percentage points). Of the 31 teams, five returned to winning percentages over .600 (97 wins in a 162-game schedule), 15 stayed over .500, and 9 stayed over .400 (65 wins today), and one sank below .400 (1904-06 Boston Pilgrims). On average they continued to decline slightly in the third year. I don't think, by any means, that this study is conclusive and that it dooms the 2003 Mariners to mediocrity, but I do think that it shows how hard it is for a team to re-establish its greatness (whatever that is) once it has lost it.

Of course, Seattle can only concern itself with issues with today's team like Jeff Cirillo's ineffectiveness and their apparent inability to rid themselves of his contract, Ichiro's and Freddy Garcia's second-half decline, Mikeameron's anomalous season, Bret Boone's return from Nirvana, the team age, etc. But it is odd that a team that seemed to establish itself among the all-time greats could fall so quick.

Now to a less apocalyptic team, the Dodgers. LA had been leading the NL West going into the All-Star break by 2.5 over the D-Backs (and 4.5 over the Giants), when the two teams opened up a four-game series in Dodgers Stadium to start off the second half. Arizona took the first three games to go up one-half game, but the Dodgers took the last behind then-staff ace Kaz Ishii to stay in the lead. At this point it seemed like those two teams would battle the rest of the year with the Giants keeping a respectful distance. Why not, the traded off for first in April ending the month in a dead heat (with the Giants one game back). The D-Backs took a 3-game lead by the end of May (the Giants 3.5 back). The Dodgers went 19-8 in June, passed the D-Backs on June 23, and took a 1.5 game lead by the end of the month-the Giants fell to 4.5 back.

It seemed like an historic battle, until the Dodgers lost 6 of 7 to complete the homestand. On July 21, Arizona stood 1.5 games up on the Dodgers, and the Dodgers had just lost 2 of 3 to the Giants, who were now suddenly just a half-game behind LA. The D-Backs won 7 of their next 8 to finish the month 5 games ahead of LA and 6 ahead of San Fran. The Dodgers and Giants played a late July series in Pac Bell, which they went into tied for second. LA won two of three this time, and a new battle for the wild card seemed to be joined.

LA seemed ready to right its ship and pull away from San Francisco in August. The Dodgers won five in a row and on August 18 sat 4 games up on the Giants, who had just lost four in a row (but still 7 behind league-leading Arizona). On June 24, the Dodgers had just won four straight including 2 from the Braves and had expanded their lead over the Giants to 4.5.

On Monday, August 26, the Dodgers opened up a three-game series at home against division-leading Arizona followed by another 3-game series early in September. After winning 9 of their last 11, the Dodgers feel that a sweep of the D-Backs can put them back in the race. In the first game the Dodgers jump out to a 3-0 lead early, but the D-Backs get two in the sixth and one in the ninth to tie it. The Dodgers got lead-off man Alex Cora on with a walk. With pinch-hitter Jolbert Cabrera at bat, Cora attempts to steal second. Cora and catcher Chad Moeller's throw arrived at second at the same time. Shortstop Tony Womack took the throw while positioning himself to tag Cora out. Cora slid headfirst and his head struck Womack's knee. He lay motionless for 12 minutes and was removed to a hospital. It was a scary moment, but Cora would return three games later. The D-Backs won 6-3 in 12. The Dodgers collected two more hits in the final 3.2 innings. The do take the last two games in the series however.

The Dodgers take seven of their next eight games and are now within four of Arizona on September 3. They have also built up a three-game lead in he wild card on San Francisco. Not only that, their rookie pitcher Kaz Ishii seemed to be settling down after seeing his ERA increase in each of the last 4 months (2.78 in May to 6.96 in August). His rotation-mate had just held Arizona scoreless for 14 innings over two games and his awful July (7.59 ERA) was now an ancient memory.

On September 8, LA started the day 4.5 behind Arizona and two in front of the Giants, who were wrapping a series against the Diamondbacks at Pac Bell with three wins in four games. The Dodgers were finishing a three-game series with Houston, who was then chasing St. Louis in the Central (5.5 back) and the Dodgers for the wild card (6.5 back). In fourth inning, with one out and two men on (both walked) and the Astros leading 2-0, Brian Hunter drove a 3-2 pitch up the middle that struck Ishii square on the forehead and ricocheted to the backstop. The Astros win 6-2 and Ishii's season-but hopefully not his career-is over.

The Dodgers proceed to lose two of three to the hot Giants and fall into a tie with them for the wild card lead at the end of their series. The Dodgers start ace Kevin Brown in game two in an act of apparent desperation. It was Brown's first start since May 26 and since back surgery in June. He replaced Andy Ashby who had a blister and a sub-fingernail infection (swear to god). Brown gave up five runs in five innings and soon returned to the DL for good. He was replaced in the rotation by sound-alike Kevin Beirne.

Meanwhile Arizona begins three series with struggling San Diego (twice) and Colorado, in which they go 7-2 and lower their magic number to 3. The Dodgers lose three of four to the Rockies to fall one game behind San Francisco in the wild card. LA misses a golden opportunity splitting four games with the Giants in Dodgers stadium with the loser in each game never being outscored by more than three runs. The Dodgers go 6-3 they rest of the season but never approach the Giants, who win their last eight straight.

I can't help but feel that the Dodgers and manager Jim Tracy deserved better, no disrespect to the Giants. With the career resurrections he has performed, I would love to see what Tracy could do with a healthy staff over an entire year. The Dodgers do have some large holes to plug: They have a collective OPS of .740 at first base, .684 OPS at second, .626 at short, and .728 at third. Those are low even for guys who play half their games at Dodgers Stadium, but if they can improve themselves in a couple of those areas, get Ishii, Brown, and Dreifort healthy by next season, they could be trouble. 2003 should present us with another great NL West race.