The Best World Series Ever!

What makes a great World Series? Well, it’s pretty subjective, isn’t it? 

I do know it’s got to be more than individual plays (Bill Mazeroski’s homer to win the ’60 Series against the Yankees, say), or individual performances (Don Larsen’s perfect game in ‘76), or individual games (the 12-inning Game 6 of the ‘75 Series between the Red Sox and Reds). It’s also probably more than a contest between arch rivals (Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers anyone?) or between David and Goliath (Mets over Orioles in ‘69). 

Maz and friends

So, what is it? Is there a more objective way to measure something like this? 

Well, the first thing we probably want to do is to limit it to just seven-game series. I mean, that’s as close and drawn-out as you’re gonna  get pretty much by definition, right? No use including shutouts, 4-1’s, or even 4-2’s. I mean, how competitive were those really if the challenger couldn’t even bring it down to the last game?

Beyond that, though, what else could we use? Well, I happened to have thought about that quite a bit, and here are my suggested criteria:

• Run differential – The lower the run differential, the closer the games. (Make sure, though, that’s a total of the run differential for every game, not the total for the whole series.)
• Lead changes – The more of these, the more drama and the more it seems like either team could win.
• Extra innings – Every extra inning only ups the tension.
• Walk-off victories – What could be more dramatic than those? 

So, here’s what I did:

1. Take the 36 seven-game series
2. Rank each one by the criteria above
3. Give the number one team 1 point, the number two 2, and so on
4. Add up those values for all of the rankings
5. Lowest total wins

So, let me give you an example …  Let’s take the last seven-game series, the 2011 one between Texas and St. Louis.

1. The run differential was 22. That comes in at number 14, so there’s 14 points.
2. There were 6 lead changes, which also happens to rank 6th overall. So that’s 6 points.
3. There was only one extra game, which went into the 10th. So that’s 2 extra innings, which just so happens to rank 9th (17 of the series didn’t have any extra innings). So that’s 9 more points.
4. Finally, there was one walk-off victory, in that extra-inning game. Once again, there were 17 series without any walk-offs, so this number is pretty high – 6 in our case.
5. Add ‘em all together, and you’ve got 35 points.

After doing the same for all the other seven-game series, the 2011 Series actually comes in sixth.  Who would have thunk it?

David Freese walk-off homer in Game 6

Here are the overall top 10:

Year	Winner	Loser	Points
1975	Cinn	Bos AL	13
1924	Wash	NYG	22
1912	Bos AL	NYG	33
1997	Fla	Clev	34
2011	StL	Tex	35
1991	Minn	StL	37
2001	Ariz	NYY	39
1964	StL	NYY	39
1947	NYY	Brkln	41
1952	NYY	Brkln	41

You may not be surprised that the ’75 Series is the best. In fact, it ranked no lower than fourth in every category. Carlton Fisk’s homer in the bottom of the twelth in Game 6 is just gravy.

That ’24 Series might be something of a surprise however. Yes, it was a very long time ago (and who knew the Senators were ever even in a World Series). But this series was tops for run differential (13) and extra innings (6). What’s holding it back was lead changes – a mere three. 

Walter Johnson’s dramatic four-inning save in the 12-inning 

Game 7 may have made this one of the best WS games ever

I guess some other surprises would be the number of series from recent years and, consequently, the limited number of those from the “golden age” of baseball. It is good to see some Yankee versus Dodger classics made it though.

Some other highlights:

• The 1991 Series had the most walk-offs, with 4
• That series also tied for the most extra innings with the ’24 Series
• Lead changes – a mere 2 – kept the ‘91 Series from finishing much higher
• The 1958 Series, with Milwaukee beating the Yankees, had the most lead changes, with 8 (it came in 11th overall, just missing the top 10)

By the way, the least competitive 7-game series was in 1965, when the Dodgers beat the Twins. Somehow, they managed to do that without an extra-inning game or walk-off, and with a differential of 33 runs and only 1 lead change!

The Worst World Series Ever!

So, what was the most non-competitive series? Well, reverse-engineering this a little (and only looking at 4-0 series), it looks like it would be the 1989 Series, where the A’s pounded the Giants. No walk-offs, no extra innings, no lead changes (!?!?), and a differential of 18 runs.

Probably more memorable for the earthquake

A close second was 2007, where the Red Sox trounced the Cards. Once again, no walk-offs, no extra innings, just 1 lead change, and a differential of 19 runs.

Interestingly, the most competitive four-game series was in 2005, when the Chisox whomped the Astros. That one had 1 walk-off, 5 extra innings, 4 lead changes, and a run differential of only 6.

How Preppy Were the Presidents?

There’s a lot of talk these days about “elites.” It’s a favorite trope of the Republicans, who typically cite academics, and actors, and policy wonks, and anyone else they can come up with who seem to be “out of touch” with the average Joe. Now, I’ve always assumed that’s just pure projection, as I can’t imagine who could possibly be more elite than the super rich and the politicians who serve them. 

I was wondering, though … Is there a way we can measure “eliteness”? Hmm …  Ever read The Official Preppy Handbook? I can’t imagine a better place to start than that. But how to quantify all the things that that book covers? Square footage of madras in closet? Use of dorky nicknames, like Trip or Tipper or Poppy? 

Well, heck, why not just cut to the chase and measure whether a politician went to prep school or not? Or an Ivy (the college equivalent)? Yup, I think we’ve got a winner. So, here’s how it’ll work:

• 1 point for attending prep school
• 1 point for an Ivy bachelors
• 1 point for an Ivy postgraduate degree

And what I’ll be looking at is presidential elections from 1868 to 2012. I think that defines the modern political scene pretty well, in addition to giving plenty of opportunity for our candidates to turn up the collars of their polo shirts as well.

Who’s the Preppiest of Them All?

Well, overall, would you believe it’s the Democrats? Yup, 39 to 32. My guess, though, is most of that can be attributed to a single person, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That fine Groton and Harvard grad (2 points) was on the ticket no less than four times (8 points). Take him out of the picture, and things are pretty even.

The preppiest ticket? Well, only one ticket garnered 4 points. And that one was Gore / Lieberman. That’s St. Albans and Harvard for the first guy, and Yale and Yale Law for the second one. More Dems. Hmm …

Gore / Lieberman

(+1 point for button-down collar,
-1 point for pit stain)

I’ve also got several with 3 points each:

Year	Party	Prez	Points	Veep	Points
1912	Rep	Taft	1	Butler	2
1956	Dem	Stevenson	2	Kefauver	1
1972	Dem	McGovern	0	Shriver	3
1992	Dem	Clinton	1	Gore	2
1996	Dem	Clinton	1	Gore	2
2000	Rep	Bush	3	Cheney	0
2004	Rep	Bush	3	Cheney	0

The preppiest candidate? 

Well, as you can probably tell from the graph above, we’ve got two. On the Democratic side, we’ve got Sargent Shriver. That’s Canterbury, Yale, and Yale Law. Extra points for the surname as first name and for marrying a Kennedy. 

R. Sargent Shriver Weds Eunice Kennedy

May 23, 1953, St. Patricks Cathedral, New York, NY

One the Republican side, we’ve got “Dubya,” the regular guy with the Texas drawl who everyone wanted to share a beer with. For him, it’s Phillips Andover, Yale, and Harvard Biz School. 

George W. Bush

Phillips Andover cheerleader

Are We Getting Preppier?

Well, if it wasn’t obvious from the table above, we are indeed getting preppier. Here’s graphical proof:

If you need a little help interpreting this:

• The X axis is presidential elections (1 = 1868, 38 = 2012)
• The Y axis is total points (all prez and veep candidates combined)

By the way, those elections with 0 points? They were:

Year	Dem Prez	Dem VP	Rep Prez	Rep VP
1880	Hancock	English	Garfield	Arthur
1884	Cleveland	Hendricks	Blaine	Logan
1888	Cleveland	Thurman	Harrison	Morton
1892	Cleveland	Stevenson	Harrison	Reid
1924	Davis	Bryan	Coolidge	Dawes
1928	Smith	Robinson	Hoover	Curtis

What Does It All Mean?

Well, I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised to learn that Republicans are preppy. Like I said before, the party is basically for the super rich, the politicians who serve them, and any chumps from the other 99% they can get to vote for them.

But why would Democrats be preppy? I mean, they’re the party of the people, right? Now, Republicans would like us to think that Democrats are all pointy-headed intellectuals who are totally out of touch and think they know best for all of us.

An alternative explanation, though, would relate to something called noblesse oblige. Perhaps you need to have gone to a prep school or Ivy to know what that means, but basically it’s the same as the biblical saying “to whom much is given, much is expected in return.”

In other words, if I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, is it really necessary for me to take bread out of other the mouths of others? Shouldn’t I feel secure enough that I don’t need to do that sort of thing? Perhaps I should even occasionally help out at the soup kitchen. I don’t know ...

B Movie Title Generator

I love B movies. Zombies, aliens, bad acting, lame special effects … These things cannot be cheesy enough for me. I love them all. Ed Wood is one of my all-time heroes.

Looking through my collection the other day, I noticed a definite pattern when it came to titles for these things. It seems to go something along the lines of “adjective + entity[+s] of/from place.” You know, like Terror Creatures from the Grave, or Wild Women of Wongo, or Devil Girl from Mars (all real, by the way)

And that led me to create this handy tool. Perhaps you can use it for your own venture into movie-making.

Here’s how it works:

1. Take your first initial and match it up to the word in column A
2. Take your middle initial and match it up to the word in column B 
3. Add the word “from”
4. Take your last initial and match it up to the phrase in column C*

* For [A], you can pick whatever you like from column A

Voila! You now have a movie.

Let me show you a couple of examples. My full name is Clifford P. Anderson. That gives me “blood” for Clifford, “predators” for P., and “[A] island” for Anderson (let’s go with “zombie” for “[A]”). Put ‘em all together and you get “Blood Predators from Zombie Island.” Duh-duh-duh Duh!

JFK? Demon Creatures from Beyond the Sun! T.S.Eliot? Robot Slaves from Another Universe! Michael J. Fox? Evil Killers from Another World! Lee Harvey Oswald? Doomsday Ghosts from Planet Evil! HR Puffenstuff? Creeping Prisoners from the Savage Planet!

Initial	A	B	C
A	alien	assassins	[A] island
B	atomic	beasts	a different world
C	blood	bigfoots	another dimension
D	bloody	brain	another planet
E	cannibal	creatures	another universe
F	chilling	demons	another world
G	crazed	devils	beneath the sea
H	creeping	ghosts	beyond space
I	death	invaders	beyond the grave
J	demon	killers	beyond the moon
K	devil	machines	beyond the sun
L	doomsday	madmen	beyond the universe
M	evil	monsters	galaxy X
N	hell	nazis	outer space
O	horror	outlaws	planet [A]
P	killer	predators	the [A] planet
Q	nazi	prey	the 6th dimension
R	outlaw	prisoners	the center of the earth
S	robo	robots	the future
T	robot	slave	grave
U	savage	species	the haunted cave
V	teenage	spiders	the lost planet
W	terror	UFOs	the lost universe
X	undead	vampires	the lost world
Y	vampire	werewolves	the underworld
Z	zombie	zombies	the wasteland

Oh, Terror Creatures from the Grave? It’s initials would be WET. Hmm …  It wouldn’t be William Howard Taft (that would give us Terror Ghosts from the Grave though). I know, I know. How about William E. Timmons, Sr.? You know, the famous Washington lobbyist? President of the Timmons Company? Ah, never mind.

Conference Realignment: A Modest Proposal

It’s hard to believe that the arch-rival of my alma mater, Duke, is now Syracuse. Or is it Notre Dame? Or was that Texas A&M? Weber State? I’m so confused.

The ACC used to be so predictable, year in and year out. Maryland, Virginia, Wake, NC State, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech ... Heck, I remember when Florida State came into the conference (and I wasn’t too happy about it either). But where the heck is Boston College coming from? Or Pitt? Why is Maryland leaving? And what in the heck does Notre Dame have to do with the coast of the Atlantic Ocean?

It’s a problem that fans are having to deal with all over the country. You’re aware, aren’t you, that the Big 10 now has twelve schools (and will have even more when football season starts again this fall)? Or that the Big 12 now has ten schools (and that one of those schools, West Virginia, is about 900 miles away from its nearest conference rival)?

I know it all has to do with money somehow. It’s not something that makes any sense to me, though, and I have to admit I just simply don’t like it all.

So, here’s my modest proposal for some conferences that really make sense, and that – more importantly – do a great deal to soothe my tortured soul. It’s kind of a unique combination of tradition and geography. Whatever it is, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s a lot better than what we’ve got now.

The Big Boys

The top level of Div I athletics has a fair amount of stability. These schools have been around awhile, and their conferences are a little more set. So, most of these conferences will look very familiar to you – the ACC, the Big 10, the PAC 10. The Big East and the SEC should look pretty familiar, with a few little changes.

There’s another conference that should look pretty familiar, but which I’m giving a new name. The Plains Conference is basically the Big 12, with a few additions and subtractions. I mean, hey, why name your conference after a number, when that number changes every year?

Now, there is one conference that really is a bit “out there.” I just so happened to notice that Texas has a ton of great schools, but they seem to spread them over a dozen different conferences. So, why don’t we put them all together right? Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Lone Star Conference.

ACC	Big 10	Pac 10	Big East	SEC	Plains	Lone Star **
MD	Ohio St	Wash	Boston Coll	Miami *	Iowa	Texas
VA	Indiana	Wash St	Syracuse	Florida	Iowa St	Texas Tech
VA Tech	Purdue	Oregon	Rutgers	Florida St *	Missou	TCU
Wake	Notre Dame	Oregon St	Army *	Georgia	Nebraska	Texas A&M
UNC	Michigan	Stanford	Penn St *	Vanderbilt	Kansas St	SMU
NC State	Mich St	Cal	Pitt	Tennessee	Kansas	Baylor
SC	Illinois	USC	WV	Kentucky	Oklahoma	Houston
Clemson	Northwestern	UCLA	Navy	Auburn	Okla St	Rice
Ga Tech	Wisconsin	Arizona		Alabama	Colorado
	Minnesota	Arizona St		Ole Miss
				Miss St
				LSU
				Arkansas

* Never in the conference (all the rest were, at one time or other)
** Brand new conference

By the way, the SEC is big enough that it needs two divisions. I’m seeing a good division between the eastern schools (the top seven) and the western ones (the bottom six).

• Lt. blue – Pac 10
• Black – Plains
• Red – Lone Star
• Royal blue – Big 10
• Yellow, left of the line – SEC West
• Yellow, right of the line – SEC East
• Orange – ACC
• Green – Big East

The Second Tier

The next group of schools shows a lot more fluidity. A lot of them are newer, so they lack the tradition that that first group has. They’re also smaller, so they might have to move around a little bit to find their place in the sun.

Now, there are definitely some conferences that will look familiar to you – the Ivy League, the Mid-American, the Western Athletic ... There are also some that shouldn’t be too far of a stretch – Conference USA, the Sun Belt, and the Mountain West. I am, though, adding a brand new one, the South Atlantic, which is basically just a grab-bag for all the leftovers.

This is also where we start to get into some of the non-football schools. I’ve shown those in italics in the table and as triangles on the map. Rest assured, though, there’s plenty of football schools at this level that nobody should have any problems with their fall sports schedules.

Ivy	Mid-American	Western Athletic	Conference USA
Dartmouth	N Illinois	Hawaii	Memphis
Harvard	Ball St	San Jose	W Kentucky *
Brown	West Mich	Fresno	DePaul
Yale	Central Mich	San Diego St	Marquette
Columbia	East Mich	Nevada	Butler *
Cornell	Toledo	UNLV	Cincinnati
Princeton	Bowling Green	Utah	Xavier *
Penn	Miami OH	Utah St	Louisville
	Ohio	BYU	Marshall
	Kent
	Akron

Mountain West	Sunbelt	South Atlantic **
Idaho *	UTEP *	Middle Tenn
Boise St	N Texas	So Alabama
Wyoming	Texas St	Troy
Colo St	Tulsa *	UAB
Air Force	Arkansas-LR	E Carolina
New Mexico	Ark St	Fla Intl
NM St	LA Tech	Fla Atl
Texas-Arl	LA-Lafayette	UCF
UTSA	LA-Monroe	USF
	Tulane
	Southern Miss

* Never in the conference (all the rest were, at one time or other)
** Brand new conference

The second tier’s got two conferences that need to be divided up, the Mid-American and the Sun Belt. For both, I’m making a break between the top five and the bottom six.

• Lt. blue – Western Athletic
• Black – Mountain West
• Red – Sun Belt 
• Royal blue – Conference USA
• Orange – Mid-American
• Yellow – South Atlantic
• Green – Ivy

The Basketball Schools

Now we are getting into a little different territory. These schools tend to have great basketball teams and no football teams. 

There are a few who do have football though. They’re all in one conference – what I’m calling the Little East – so I guess they can play each other then find some other teams outside their conference. Once again, italics and triangles means no football.

Atlantic	West Coast	Little East	Miss Valley
VCU	Gonzaga	Providence	N Iowa
Geo Wash	Seattle	UMass	Drake
Richmond	Portland	UConn	Creighton
St Joseph	San Fran	St John	Missou St
LaSalle	Santa Clara	Seton Hall	St Louis *
Duquesne	Pepperdine	Villanova	Wichita St
St Bonny	Loyola Marymount	Temple *	S Illinois
Fordham	San Diego	Georgetown	Illinois St
Rhode Isl		Buffalo *	Bradley
			Indiana St
			Evansville
			Dayton *

* Never in the conference (all the rest were, at one time or other)

There's one conference that needs to be divided up, the Mississippi Valley. It, though, involves an even split between the top six (west of the squiggly line) and the bottom six (east of the squiggly line - roughly, the Mississippi River). 

• Lt. blue – West Coast
• Royal blue – Mississippi Valley
• Yellow – Atlantic
• Green – Little East

So, there you go, NCAA! Have at it!

Without the Solid South

I’m a Southerner, so I know my region is a little, um … er … “different.”  Now, that extends to lots of different things, but I want to focus on here is politics.  In particular, I’d like to concentrate on how the South has long been a one-party state.

Now, what’s particularly interesting about that history is how the South switched from being a one-party Democratic state to being a one-party Republican state.  Yes, the parties have changed over the years, but that movement is kind of like switching from being a Red Sox fan to being a Yankees fan, from loving Coke to loving Pepsi, from being a dog person to being a cat person ...  

That switch started roughly with the 1948 election and was pretty well finished in 1972.  In the early years of that period, Southerners often voted for third parties – Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, George Wallace.  After Nixon’s landslide over McGovern in ’72, the South neglected to go all red only on rare occasions – typically, for native sons like Carter and Clinton.

Better Off Without ‘Em

I just finished an excellent book, Better Off Without ‘Em, by Chuck Thompson.  The sub-title is “A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession,” and Thompson does a wonderful job skewering my region and also bemoaning the outsized effect it’s had on the rest of the USA.

That book got me thinking about what presidential elections might have looked like without the solid South.  More recently, it made me wonder if the country would have elected right wingers like Reagan and Bush II.  More historically (say, between the Civil War and JFK), I wondered if the country could have elected any Democrats at all.

Before the Big Switch

Historically, the South was solidly Democratic.  From 1880 through 1916, the region never once voted for a Republican in a presidential election (and only one state defected in both 1920 and 1924).  There were some major defections in 1928 (the Democratic candidate was Catholic – gasp!), but the South went super solid again for all of FDR’s four elections.  

Except for FDR, Democratic presidents were pretty rare birds during this period – basically, just Cleveland and Wilson.  I was wondering, though, if even they could have made it without the solid South.  Looking at the data (basically, subtracting the former Confederacy from the Electoral College), here’s what I got:

Year	Dem. Pres. Elected	Electoral Votes	Electoral Votes w/out South	Rep. Electoral Votes	Winner
1884	Cleveland	219	120	182	James G. Blaine!!!
1892	Cleveland	277	145	156	Benjamin Harrison!!!
1912	Wilson	435	296	80	Wilson
1916	Wilson	277	138	254	Charles Evans Hughes!!!

So, there would have been only four years of Democratic administrations between the Civil War and FDR, instead of the existing eight.  And school kids would have to memorize two additional presidents, Blaine and Hughes.

Pres. Blaine  

Pres. Hughes

After the Big Switch

Richard Nixon was the first Republican candidate to really go trolling for Southern votes.  It was called the “Southern strategy,” and it was largely the idea of Kevin Phillips.  (I’m not including Barry Goldwater’s version of the same strategy, as Goldwater was very much a fringe candidate back in 1964).

After that, Republicans pretty much dominated the South to the present day, with exceptions for native sons Carter and Clinton in 1976, 1992, and 1996.   Once again, though, I’m wondering how successful they would have been without the (now Republican) solid South.  Let’s take a look.

Year	Rep. Pres. Elected	Electoral Votes	Elec. Votes w/out South	Dem. Electoral Votes	Winner
1980	Reagan	489	363	49	Reagan
1984	Reagan	525	364	13	Reagan
1988	Bush I	426	271	105	Bush I
2000	Bush II	271	103	261	Gore!!!
2004	Bush II	286	113	251	Kerry!!!

So, once again, eight additional years for the out party (this time, the Democrats), as well as two brand new presidents (though Gore would probably simply have repeated, if he had originally been elected in 2000).

Pres. Gore

  

Pres. Kerry

No South, No Southern Candidates

Up until, oh maybe JFK, Southerners were not well represented on national presidential ballots.  I guess the Democrats just figured they didn’t even have to bother.  The old saying was that Southerners would vote for a “yellow dog” (i.e., a real mongrel) before they would vote for a Republican.  In the same vein, Republicans must have known nominating a Southerner wouldn’t have made any differences whatsoever.

The only exception for Democrats was John Nance Gardner, a Texan, and FDR’s VP in 1932 and 1936 (FDR would actually dump him in 1940).  There wouldn’t be another Southerner until Alban Barkley, a Kentuckian, was Truman’s VP in 1948.  

(I really don’t count Woodrow Wilson as a Southerner.  Yes, he was born and grew up down here – and was a terrible racist – but he headed up North for college, and never looked back.)

It was only after Nixon that Southerners started playing a major role on each party’s tickets,  Actually, they rather started to dominate things – Carter, Bentsen, Clinton, Gore, Bush I, Bush II.  

So, if we were to eliminate the South from the electoral college, I guess we’d have to eliminate any Southern candidates as well.  And here’s what that might mean:

Year	Party	Position	Actual Candidate	Likely Non-Southern Candidate
1932	Democrat	VP	Garner	Al Smith
1936	Democrat	VP	Garner	Al Smith
1948	Democrat	VP	Barkley	William O. Douglas (Supreme Court Justice)
1960	Democrat	VP	LBJ	Stuart Symington (MO Senator)
1964	Democrat	Pres.	LBJ	Symington
1976	Democrat	Pres.	Carter	Mo Udall (AZ Congressman)
1980	Democrat	Pres.	Carter	Udall
1980	Republican	VP	Bush I	John Anderson (IL Congressman)
1984	Republican	VP	Bush I	Anderson
1988	Republican	Pres.	Bush I	Anderson
1988	Democrat	VP	Lloyd Bentsen	Dick Gephardt (MO Congressman)
1992	Democrat	Pres.	Clinton	Jerry Brown
1992	Democrat	VP	Gore	Paul Tsongas
1996	Democrat	Pres.	Clinton	Jerry Brown
1996	Democrat	VP	Gore	Paul Tsongas
2000	Democrat	Pres.	Gore	Bill Bradley
2000	Republican	Pres.	Bush II	John McCain
2004	Republican	Pres.	Bush II	John McCain
2004	Democrat	VP	John Edwards *	Gephardt / Tom Vilsac

* Bradley / Lieberman may have simply repeated

So, who would it have been in 1992, Jerry Brown or John Anderson?   Would you have voted for Mo Udall in 1976 (heck, would you have voted for anyone who wasn’t associated in any way, shape, or form with Nixon)?  Who would it have been in 2000, McCain or former Knick Bill Bradley?  Oh, and does this mean Linda Ronstadt would have been the first lady?

Pres. Symington

Pres. Udall

Pres. Brown with
First Lady Linda Ronstadt