Your Alt-1923 World Series Champions

 

Really, I should stop making predictions because they're always wrong.  It took the full seven games, but the New York Giants emerged triumphant in what would likely be considered one of the best World Series up to this point and also one of the most shocking. The 1923 Yankees, winners of a jaw-dropping 121 games during the regular season just couldn't get it done. They dropped the first two at home, came back to win the middle three at the Polo Grounds, and then dropped the last two at home again. Three of the Yankees losses were by one run. 

The Yankees' pitching, a strength all year, let them down. Vance had two clunkers and one good game. Faber had a great Game 3 and was gutting his way through Game 6 when injury forced him out. Mogridge blew a save in Game 7 and took the loss. 

That is not to say the Giants didn't earn their win, in that OOTP way. Torriente followed up his record-breaking season by hitting 5 home runs in the World Series for another record and the World Series MVP. High Pockets Kelly had 13 hits and ended at .406. Bucky Harris had several big hits and Lewis Hampton hit a grand slam in the 1st inning of Game 7 that threatened to end things right there before the Yankees fought back. 

From a Doylist point of view, this was something of a bullshit result. From a Watsonian one it's consistent with 1906 and 1914 (to name two World Series) where heavily favored teams were beaten. And indeed, the Watsonian point of view might continue to question whether the NL is simply a better league--the Yankees didn't get here by beating up on two terrible teams but they dominated everybody. In their four consecutive World Series appearances, the Yankees are 2-2, and if you add 1918 they're 2-3. I'd think they were favored in at least four of those five. 

But that's why we play the games, I suppose. The Yankees _still_ haven't won back-to-back championships, and it'll take until the end of 1925 at the earliest for them to do so. I think this team still has a way to go in its current championship window (especially since I have a bunch of early-30s stars on the team already), but I do wonder whether there'd be a bit of a whiff of disappointment around the team. The real-life Giants won four consecutive pennants 1921-1924, but went 2-2. Were people disappointed in them?

In any case, the Alt-1923 Giants have done something no other team was able to do this year:  win a season series against the New York Yankees.

Alt-1923 World Series Preview

 

OK, I hit a lot of points in that last, long post. Let me see if I can keep this relatively concise...

On paper, the Yankees should wipe out the Giants. The Giants had a great year and won 96 games, but the Yankees played at a 99-win pace against the AL team they did worse against, and were at a 108- or 117-win pace against most teams. So, let's try to look at whether I'm overlooking anything that might indicate we're underestimating the Giants.

Team Stats Comparison:  I talked about how the Yankees and Giants fared in their own leagues, but let's go one level (or maybe two levels) deeper and try to avoid the Rustlers Effect that I fell victim to in 1921. AL teams had a road ERA of 4.53 and a road OPS of .719.  Visitors to Yankee Stadium had an ERA of 7.36 and OPS of .888.  AL road teams not facing the Yankees had an ERA of 4.23.   The Yankees had a road ERA of 3.79, nearly a half-run better. If we do this for the Giants: NL teams had a road ERA of 3.76 and a road OPS of .724. Visitors to the Polo Grounds had an ERA of 4.46 and an OPS of 0.777.  NL road teams not facing the Giants had an ERA of 3.69. The Giants themselves had a road ERA of 3.90. Maybe not demonstrably worse, but certainly not demonstrably better.

The flip side (or maybe it's the same side, actually) is runs per game by the offense. AL teams scored 4.64 runs per road game. The Yankees scored 5.68 runs per road game. Non-Yankee teams scored 4.70 runs per road game not involving the Yankees. So the Yanks scored a full run per game more. NL road teams scored 4.46 R/G, the Giants scored 4.67 R/G on the road. Non-Giants teams scored 4.49 runs per game vs. non-Giants opponents. Here the Giants are 0.2 runs per game better than average, which pales compared to the Yankees.

Individual Difference-Makers: Cristóbal Torriente turned in one of the greatest offensive seasons we've seen in this league, setting the single-season record for home runs and finishing with an OPS+ of 168 and just shy of 7 WAR. He's only 3rd in WAR among World Series participants, though--his teammate Marty McManus outpaced him based on his defense (and a good offensive year too) and Harry Heilmann led all other Yankees and Giants this year with a WAR of 7.5. 

Nevertheless, Torriente is the big name and, I think, the best player at the Series. In contrast to most of the World Series the Yankees have been in, the top players by WAR are dominated by the NL team--Heilmann is the only Yankee in the top 4, with Ken Williams following Torriente before a  string of 6 Yankees in a row round out the top 10.  Looking at OPS+ and deciding on an arbitrary 200 PA (since so many contributing Yankees were part-timers or injury replacements),  Torriente leads the group, with Heilmann and Ken Williams following, the injured Charleston and Collins following them, and then Cobb, Cy Williams, Bullet Rogan, and McManus all in a virtual tie at 120. 

Getting into the weeds a bit more, Torriente seems to have a reverse split and fare better against lefties than righties, while Ken Williams has a normal split. 

If we go to pitching, Vance is pretty clearly the best on either team, both in terms of WAR and ERA+. Flame Delhi, the Giants' ace, is closer to Vance than one might think given that he was "only" 22-11. Vance had a good FIP (again, with Delhi surprisingly close!), but it was the Yankees relief corps who led the way there, with Ruether, Mogridge, and Curry all besting Vance while pitching 30+ innings. Mogridge also had a better ERA+ and had a sneaky-good year out of the pen, including a league-leading 13 saves.

Other than Delhi, the Giants' pitchers are not quite so impressive. Sanders, Hampton, and Hall are currently listed as the starters for Games 2-4 (though that could change), and the Yankees starters (Rixey and Faber with Vance in a 3-man rotation, pending how things go) match up well or better. 

A Watsonian Word:  The city of New York would no doubt be alive with excitement, even in comparison to last season's Robins-Yankees contest. The Giants are still in a lot of ways the more prestigious, better-rooted team, and they drew nearly as many fans as the Yankees did (and brought in rather more revenue). There's more fan interest for the Giants. Can the Yankees keep it together with the injuries and perhaps less urgency than a Giants team that hasn't made the World Series since 1913 and hasn't won one since 1905?  Or will the chance to match the Rustlers' record with a third consecutive championship and the drive to finish off a dream season be more than enough to carry the talented pinstriped crew to victory?

I'll also note that two players from that 1913 Giants squad are on the team for the 1923 Series: Art Fletcher, who's been in New York the entire time, and Milt Stock, who's returned after time on other teams. 

Prediction: I tried to talk myself out of a Yankees victory being inevitable, but I can't. Things happen, the Yankees could have a few bad games at an unlucky time.  But I think by far the likeliest outcome is a Yankees win.  I'll say 5 games to be conservative, but a sweep wouldn't surprise me at all.

Alt-1923: Season Recap!

 

It's my intention to write a World Series preview in the next day or two, but I do feel like it's worth writing something separate (if only in bullet form) for the season that just ended.  So as not to bury the lede, the Yankees had a historically good season and ran away with the AL pennant, and will be facing their former landlords, the New York Giants, in the World Series.

• The Yankees finished with a completely crazy 121-41 record, good for a .746 winning percentage. This smashes their own 115-win record from 1920 and the Cubs' 116 wins in 1906, though the latter team still holds the record for winning percentage (.763).  The Yankees had 116 wins through 154 games, but the Cubs only played 152 in 1906 for what that was worth.
• I imagine Ty Cobb getting a bunch of interviews as one of the only (or maybe the only?) still-active players to have some first-hand experience against those Cubs, albeit in the 1907 and 1908 World Series rather than 1906. 
• The Yankees did this despite some really potentially devastating injuries--they only had Oscar Charleston for 58 games in 1923, lost Ty Cobb for about a month, and lost Eddie Collins and Louis Santop for the season during the same early-September week. The roster is so deep, however, that they didn't really skip a beat in making Terry and Traynor into regulars and shifting Heilmann to the outfield (where he's a much better fielder). 
• How well did they play? They had two different months when they went 22-6 (.785), and neither was their best month--in May they went 24-4 (.857).  Their worst month was April, when they were "only" 16-11 (.592), a 96-win pace.
• They were 1st in basically every offensive category, except extra-base hits (where they were a surprising 6th of 10), strikeouts (which they kept down relative to recent years, perhaps due to Charleston's absence, and only finished 4th), and stolen bases (where they finished 2nd!). 
• Key to their success was their pitching. Dazzy Vance went 30-2, and as a team they finished 1st in ERA and Starters' ERA, WAR for pitchers, hits allowed, walks, strikeouts, and zone rating. They finished 2nd in a lot of other categories, and the only thing they didn't do super-well was suppress home runs (they were 6th). 
• At the team vs. team level, the Yankees wiped out the Red Sox (going 17-1 against them) and Peppers (16-2), but were 13-5 or 12-6 vs. most teams. The worst they did was 11-7 vs. the Packers. 
• As a result of all of this, the Yankees ended up winning the AL by 28 games over the 2nd-place Athletics, with the Packers in 3rd 30 games back. The White Sox brought up the rear, 57-105 and a jaw-dropping 64 games back. 
• As noted, the Yankees have a very deep roster and that led to a balanced lineup. There wasn't an obvious breakout, dominant season from anybody, but the team hit .322 (only 20 qualified hitters in the whole MLB did better, including 5 Yankees as you'd expect), and had a team OPS of .826, which would have placed them #29 among qualified hitters.  Absolutely bananas. 
• The Yankees had the #2, #3, and #4 hitters in batting average (Cobb, Collins, and Heilmann), though Cobb had another rotten September to give the batting crown to Shoeless Joe Jackson.  Those three also were the top 3 in AL OBP, with Collins on top. Of course, he's now out injured for the World Series.
• With Ruth hurt most of the year, the AL MVP race is open for the first time in years. 
• To the extent that there's an obvious MVP candidate on the Yankees to coalesce around, it's probably Heilmann. He's #4 in AL batting average, tops in RBI with 150 (2nd in all-time AL single season history), #2 in AL OBP, #2 in AL SLG, #1 in AL OPS, #1 in AL WAR, #1 in AL runs scored. He had 200+ hits. He even led the AL in Win Probability Added. 
• The other obvious Yankees candidate for MVP is Dazzy Vance, who had the breakout year I've been waiting for since 1916. He had 30 wins (as noted above), led the league in strikeouts, and finished 2nd in ERA just 0.1 run behind Shocker. I was sufficiently paranoid about injuries near the end that he skipped his final start, as did Luque and Faber.
• Going briefly into Watsonian mode, Dobie Moore might get my vote over Heilmann. He took over as the starting 3B and played very well there, moved over to full-time 2B when Collins went down, and was the SS when Peckinpaugh needed a rest. He ended up hitting .339 with 100+ RBI and led the league in triples. Still, he "only" had 4.5 WAR vs. Heilmann's 7.5.
• There aren't any really obvious non-Yankee candidates, either. Joe Hauser of the White Sox led the league in home runs, with Jake Fournier not too far behind, but Heilmann had the better all-around year.
• In the NL, it'll probably be Hornsby for MVP. He led the league in batting average, and was 2nd in HR and RBI. He led the NL in WAR with a completely crazy 9.5. However, Torriente had a historic season and was the first player in history to hit 50+ home runs, setting a new single-season record.
• Torriente also took the lead in career home runs, which was an interesting twist for me. Torriente has a 17-homer lead over Ruth, which might be rather hard for Ruth to make up in the short term. If this year's injuries were the Alt-1915 universe's equivalent of Ruth's 1922 absences, he still has the 1925 equivalent absences to get through. On the other hand, Ruth is one year younger than Torriente, and Ruth hit 448 home runs from 1924-1933, so I think even if he can't do more than inch up on Torriente in coming years he could blow past him if he outlasts him and plays longer...
• Before moving to the NL in a bit more detail, I'll congratulate the Toronto Maple Leafs, Sacramento Senators, Charlotte Hornets, Des Moines Demons, Dayton Ducks and Hartford Whales for winning the championships of their leagues, and in particular note Toronto, Charlotte, and Dayton for winning their level's championships.
• Toronto wasn't as dominant in the IL as the Yankees were in the AL, but they took care of business and reeled in a Mud Hens team that led much of the season. Buzz Arlett won the IL Triple Crown (and set AAA records for HR and RBI in the process, as well as for WAR), and the Leafs beat a Senators team (that ran away with the PCL) in five games. 
• Charlotte has Gehringer, Cochrane, and Dihigo, and swept Des Moines. Baltimore should be hard to beat soon, and they get another high pick in the next draft because the Orioles are still terrible at the MLB level.
• As for the Yankees' opponents in the 1923 World Series, the Giants built a big lead in the NL and basically coasted the last few months--they led Boston and St. Louis by 11.5 games at the end of July, gave back about half of that lead and sat ~5-6 games up over the latter half of August and most of September before padding it a bit at the end.
• The Giants' best month was a 17-8 July, which they followed up with a 12-17 August as their worst month.
• The Giants seem to have been good at everything, but not necessarily great at anything. They were 2nd-3rd in most major offensive categories (but 1st in OPS and wOBA), and 5th-6th in most pitching categories (but 1st in pitching WAR and strikeouts). 

I suppose I should quit here since I'm about to wander off into a World Series Preview. That'll be next!