CrossFit Total is a workout we do fairly infrequently at CF. I don't remember why, but I know I missed it that last time we did it. I might have missed more than one. Last night was the first time I'd done this workout since May 9, 2011.
The workout is fairly simple. We don't have a fixed time limit to complete the workout, but it usually takes me 45-50 minutes to get through the warm-up lifts and the actual test lifts. In a fixed time frame, the goal is to get a maximum weight back squat, a max weight strict (aka military) press, and max weight deadlift.
You are only allowed three attempts per lift, excluding your warm-up sets. And, if you manage to fail on each of those 3 attempts, you can't count your warm-up weight. You get a zero. Your score is the sum of your three max lifts.
Given the limit of three lifts, there is definitely some strategy involved. Essentially, I want the first attempt to be something relatively heavy, but something I know I can do. The second lift should be a stretch, but with a decent probability that it will go. If the second goes, the third is more of a stretch - something where I might fail. If I fail on the second, I try to find something between the first and second that I think I can make.
I had three goals for the workout. The first goal was basically something I was sure I could do. The second was what I thought I could do, and the third was my "reach" goal - if everything went as well as possible. Here are the three goals I'd established:
Goal 1: 345/125/385 = 855.
Goal 2: 350/130/395 = 875
Goal 3: 355/135/415 = 905
My score on 5/9/2011 was 315/125/365 = 805.
We have just complete a 12-week squat cycle, called a Hatch Cycle. It was 2 squat workouts per week, doing back squats and front squats in each workout. I started the program with a back squat best of 330 pounds. During the program, I got to 340 pounds and that lift felt fairly solid; I knew I could do more.
During the workout last night, I spent way more time on my back squat warm-ups than the warm-ups for the other lifts. Primarily, I used the first part of the warm-up not only to get ready for the heavy back squats, but also as an all body warm-up that had me primed to continue fairly quickly through the other lifts.
My squat warm-ups were as follows:
5x45
4x135
3x185
2x225
1x275
1x315
Because I was fairly confident from the work over the previous 12 weeks, my first attempt was at 345. It went easily. I felt confident after this lift and jumped straight to 355, not stopping at my intermediate goal. I hit that easily. I then wavered a bit, unsure if I should try 360 or 365. I finally opted for 365, and although it wasn't easy, I got it. All three of these lifts were PRs.
Already, I was above my best hopes for this lift and I immediately started thinking about the possibility of 900 pounds.
I warmed up for the strict press at 45, 75, 95 and 115. My first test attempt was 125 and it went surprisingly easily. This is a lift I've done very rarely in the past six months. We did one workout of 5x5 seated presses recently, but I hadn't really tried any heavy singles in a long time. I guess I really didn't know what to expect on this one. I jumped to 135 (old PR of 130) and it also went easily. I now had 500 pounds and I was thinking even more about 900. I was positive I could deadlift 395, so rather than shooting for 145 on the next press, I went for 140. It also went easily and I probably could have done 145.
Now, I was at 505 with just the deadlift remaining. Of the three lifts in this workout, the deadlift is my best lift. I warmed up at 135, 225, 275, and 315. My first test attempt was at 375, a weight I knew I'd make and it went easily. My plan for the next lift was 395, but I opted for 405 to tie my PR instead. This seemed somewhat risky, because if I failed here, I might not make 395 for the 900 total on my third attempt. I had only ever pulled 405 once before, on 2/29/2011, and it had been a huge struggle that day. It seemed like that bar took forever to get to my waist that first time.
Yesterday, though, the 405 moved easily, and I was at 910 with one lift to go. Here again, I was torn. Should I go for 415 or 425 on my last lift? The higher value seemed reasonable, but the lower value would give me a PR on all three lifts for the night, with less risk of failure. So, I went for the 415 and while it was hard, I wasn't at my absolute limit. I'm sure I could have done the 425, but there are other days to attempt that.
My final scores were 365/140/415 = 920, with all three lifts above my highest goal level.
My wife drove home from the gym, and I used that time to post my score on Facebook, so other CrossFit friends could see it. The first comment I got was from a running friend in CA, and he asked if there were any steroids involved. That brought me back to earth a bit because I cannot answer "no" to that question.
When I started taking testosterone at the beginning of June, my levels were clinically low and I was struggling in the gym quite a bit. I haven't had another test to measure my testosterone levels since then. Are the readings in the normal range now? Or, are they in the high range? Essentially, I am left wondering how much of this workout was me, and how much is due to the twice weekly injections of testosterone.
I did the work last night. I did the training. I work hard in the gym. But, I am also fairly positive that I would not have lifted as much last night if I wasn't doing testosterone supplementation.
A tainted result? Possibly? Probably? I'll probably have more of an opinion when I have my next set of lab tests done. If my testosterone levels are above the normal range, the result will feel somewhat tainted. At the same time, I certainly don't want to go back to how I was feeling six months ago. It is certainly very encouraging to be making progress in the gym again.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
CrossFit - Is It Good to be Sore and Tired Most of the Time?
I ran across an online discussion thread about CrossFit earlier this week. Someone was discussing a four month experiment with CrossFit, and how he had finally decided that CrossFit wasn't for him. He said that his fitness had improved. His body composition had improved. He liked most of the results from CrossFit. Yet, there was one thing he didn't like and it led him to abandon CF.
What was the one thing he didn't like? He was tired of being stiff and sore and tired. As I read the post, I kept thinking about the length of time he had spent doing CF - only four months. I found myself thinking he was still adapting to CF and simply needed to give it more time.
And then I thought about my own experiences. I read this yesterday. I also looked at my workout log for 2010, and saw that yesterday was the two-year anniversary of when I started CF. My notes in my log for that workout are as follows:
"21-15-9 of power cleans and push-ups. Pathetic - low weight, girly push-ups, almost puked, I loved it."
Two weeks later, I had to step outside in the middle of a workout named "Chief" and I did puke into the bushes that day.
I've learned a lot since then. I've gotten a lot stronger. My back squat PR has gone from 265 to 340, and I think I'll hit 350 this coming Monday. My deadlift had stagnated at 365 before CrossFit, but I can lift 405 now. My ability to pace myself through a high intensity workout is much better.
I wish I could claim that my body composition has improved tremendously. In those two years, my weight has gone up by a net of 8 pounds. I'm guessing that I've gained more than 8 pounds of muscle and I've lost some fat. But, I still carry too much body fat and I weigh more than I'd like.
That all sounds pretty good. Even the worst thing, my weight, is somewhat neutral. But, the post that I read did hit on one thing that's true for me as well. I am sore and stiff and tired a lot of the time.
Why do I spend so much time training, whether it's in the gym or the long, long distance running I've done in the past? Part of it has been to compete. Part has been so that I could perform well at other things I love, whether hiking or skiing or rock climbing or whatever else I wanted to play at.
I think that CrossFit helps me to do that. So did running.
But, today, my knees are sore, my shoulders are sore, and my biceps are sore. I know why these muscles are sore. The workouts of the last two days hit some different muscle groups than I hit routinely, or hit them differently. Last night I did 15 x 4 chin-ups, every minute, on the minute. That explains the sore biceps. Wednesday night, I did 7x3 of a lift called rack pulls (essentially, the upper half of a deadlift) at weights from 365 to 405 pounds. That explains the shoulders. Box jumps and burpees and squats are probably responsible for achy knees.
One of the funny things about CrossFit is the nearly infinite number of ways you can scale a workout. When I first started, I did the workouts at a very low level compared to the "prescribed" weight and rep schemes. As I've gotten more "CrossFit fit", I simply add more pounds or more reps or do a more complex movement. I still scale things down as well, but I do a lot more than I did two years ago. Every workout can be made to be incredibly difficult.
Two years later, I still do box jumps on a shorter box than most people. I use resistance bands for pull-ups, especially when we have lots of reps. I find alternate exercises when the workout calls for muscle-ups or handstand push-ups or double unders. But, I still push myself hard almost every workout. And, as I constantly remind myself, I'm not getting any younger. And I'm not a skinny guy.
When I took a week of vacation to go fly fishing last month, I worked out on my own for most of the week and only made it to CF once that week. Some of the aches and pains disappeared for a few days. One day that week, while wading upstream in some fast-moving water, I remember thinking that I felt strong and steady in some water that could be intimidating for wading.
When I put my air conditioners away for the season, I find that they feel light and I can easily move them myself. Last weekend, I helped my in-laws getting their summer camp ready for the summer. The "heavy" things they needed help with didn't feel heavy at all to me. An afternoon spent stacking firewood doesn't leave me sore for days. A day spent skiing steep bumps on the mountain doesn't tire me out the way it did a few years ago.
So, yeah, I'm stiff and sore and tired at times. But, at age 50, my body is still functioning pretty well. I guess I'm finding that the good still outweighs any bad.
And in an hour, I'll be in the gym to do some front squats, back squats and some ab work. Tomorrow, I'll take it easy and do some fly fishing. Sunday, I'll probably go for an easy run. And Monday, I'll be right back at CF, going as hard as I can.
What was the one thing he didn't like? He was tired of being stiff and sore and tired. As I read the post, I kept thinking about the length of time he had spent doing CF - only four months. I found myself thinking he was still adapting to CF and simply needed to give it more time.
And then I thought about my own experiences. I read this yesterday. I also looked at my workout log for 2010, and saw that yesterday was the two-year anniversary of when I started CF. My notes in my log for that workout are as follows:
"21-15-9 of power cleans and push-ups. Pathetic - low weight, girly push-ups, almost puked, I loved it."
Two weeks later, I had to step outside in the middle of a workout named "Chief" and I did puke into the bushes that day.
I've learned a lot since then. I've gotten a lot stronger. My back squat PR has gone from 265 to 340, and I think I'll hit 350 this coming Monday. My deadlift had stagnated at 365 before CrossFit, but I can lift 405 now. My ability to pace myself through a high intensity workout is much better.
I wish I could claim that my body composition has improved tremendously. In those two years, my weight has gone up by a net of 8 pounds. I'm guessing that I've gained more than 8 pounds of muscle and I've lost some fat. But, I still carry too much body fat and I weigh more than I'd like.
That all sounds pretty good. Even the worst thing, my weight, is somewhat neutral. But, the post that I read did hit on one thing that's true for me as well. I am sore and stiff and tired a lot of the time.
Why do I spend so much time training, whether it's in the gym or the long, long distance running I've done in the past? Part of it has been to compete. Part has been so that I could perform well at other things I love, whether hiking or skiing or rock climbing or whatever else I wanted to play at.
I think that CrossFit helps me to do that. So did running.
But, today, my knees are sore, my shoulders are sore, and my biceps are sore. I know why these muscles are sore. The workouts of the last two days hit some different muscle groups than I hit routinely, or hit them differently. Last night I did 15 x 4 chin-ups, every minute, on the minute. That explains the sore biceps. Wednesday night, I did 7x3 of a lift called rack pulls (essentially, the upper half of a deadlift) at weights from 365 to 405 pounds. That explains the shoulders. Box jumps and burpees and squats are probably responsible for achy knees.
One of the funny things about CrossFit is the nearly infinite number of ways you can scale a workout. When I first started, I did the workouts at a very low level compared to the "prescribed" weight and rep schemes. As I've gotten more "CrossFit fit", I simply add more pounds or more reps or do a more complex movement. I still scale things down as well, but I do a lot more than I did two years ago. Every workout can be made to be incredibly difficult.
Two years later, I still do box jumps on a shorter box than most people. I use resistance bands for pull-ups, especially when we have lots of reps. I find alternate exercises when the workout calls for muscle-ups or handstand push-ups or double unders. But, I still push myself hard almost every workout. And, as I constantly remind myself, I'm not getting any younger. And I'm not a skinny guy.
When I took a week of vacation to go fly fishing last month, I worked out on my own for most of the week and only made it to CF once that week. Some of the aches and pains disappeared for a few days. One day that week, while wading upstream in some fast-moving water, I remember thinking that I felt strong and steady in some water that could be intimidating for wading.
When I put my air conditioners away for the season, I find that they feel light and I can easily move them myself. Last weekend, I helped my in-laws getting their summer camp ready for the summer. The "heavy" things they needed help with didn't feel heavy at all to me. An afternoon spent stacking firewood doesn't leave me sore for days. A day spent skiing steep bumps on the mountain doesn't tire me out the way it did a few years ago.
So, yeah, I'm stiff and sore and tired at times. But, at age 50, my body is still functioning pretty well. I guess I'm finding that the good still outweighs any bad.
And in an hour, I'll be in the gym to do some front squats, back squats and some ab work. Tomorrow, I'll take it easy and do some fly fishing. Sunday, I'll probably go for an easy run. And Monday, I'll be right back at CF, going as hard as I can.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Disgusted!
The Penn State pedophile, whose name I won't even mention here, spent a lot of time yesterday and today decrying his innocence and claiming that he would never have done any of those "disgusting acts."
He was sentenced to a jail term of 30-60 years, with no chance of serving fewer than 30 years. Because he is 68 years old, he could theoretically survive long enough to be paroled 30 years from now.
His insistence of innocence disgusts me. If he honestly believes he is innocent, he needs a lot of professional mental help. If he is lying, simply to protect himself, he is just a disgusting scumbag. I'd say he's more of a scumbag than we were led to believe earlier, but lying pales in comparison to his other crimes.
Is there legitimately any chance that all of these witnesses, including adults, and not just the young victims, conspired against him?
I remain adamantly opposed to the death penalty and I have not yet seen a criminal case that will change my mind. But, there are times when I think that criminals should have sentences that guarantee they will never step outside a prison again. This pedophile deserved that.
And, claiming innocence in front of his victims in a court of law is disgusting. I am a person who believes that redemption and forgiveness are never impossible. But, failing to own up to your own actions is not something that falls on the path to redemption or forgiveness.
May the world never see his face again!
He was sentenced to a jail term of 30-60 years, with no chance of serving fewer than 30 years. Because he is 68 years old, he could theoretically survive long enough to be paroled 30 years from now.
His insistence of innocence disgusts me. If he honestly believes he is innocent, he needs a lot of professional mental help. If he is lying, simply to protect himself, he is just a disgusting scumbag. I'd say he's more of a scumbag than we were led to believe earlier, but lying pales in comparison to his other crimes.
Is there legitimately any chance that all of these witnesses, including adults, and not just the young victims, conspired against him?
I remain adamantly opposed to the death penalty and I have not yet seen a criminal case that will change my mind. But, there are times when I think that criminals should have sentences that guarantee they will never step outside a prison again. This pedophile deserved that.
And, claiming innocence in front of his victims in a court of law is disgusting. I am a person who believes that redemption and forgiveness are never impossible. But, failing to own up to your own actions is not something that falls on the path to redemption or forgiveness.
May the world never see his face again!
Monday, October 8, 2012
Finally Catching Up
It seems really unfair that the way the business world works these days, this is how a vacation tends to go:
Week before vacation - Work huge number of hours so feel like things are settled enough that you can leave for a while.
During vacation - check in daily, hope nothing terribly wrong happens, end up un-surprised when you get three phone calls in a single morning while fly fishing.
Week after vacation - Work huge number of hours to try to catch up on what you didn't do last week.
The net result is that I worked as many hours in the three weeks that included my vacation as I would have worked in those three weeks if I hadn't taken vacation. Something seems really, really wrong there, to be honest.
Overall, my vacation was fairly relaxing. Due to the weather, I got out fishing only three days, and I only caught fish on two of those days. The fish in my last post was the biggest fish I caught all week. My son fished with me for a couple days and had about the same results that I had.
I went to a concert. Worked out a lot. Slept a lot. Finished season 4 of Breaking Bad. And now I'm back at work; today starts my second week back.
My wife is also back at work today, which is certainly a relief for her. Being out of work was certainly costly. We paid two months of COBRA coverage for health care - a big chunk of change. And, my wife is not eligible for health care insurance at her new job until December. So, until then, I am using my company's insurance, which is very expensive, has a very high deductible, and requires me to put a significant amount of money into a health savings account. Neither this policy or the COBRA policy is remotely affordable, and on top of losing 9 weeks of pay, the health care costs have been a big hit. Regretfully, none of the people running for President is willing to deal with people caught in a situation like we are going through. I'm not saying that it's the government's job to help me out right now. I do think that our health care system should be different so that no one has to endure what we've just dealt with.
We are lucky, in that we have been able to scrape by without the second income and still pay the health care premiums. But, many people would not be able to do so. Having no health insurance exactly when you need the insurance the most - when your income is reduced or gone - seems absurd to me.
My wife and I have never collected unemployment, never used food stamps, never used welfare, always paid our bills, and played by the rules. And, with college degrees and years of job experience, we are doing OK. I certainly have a new understanding of the hardships people endure when unemployed or underemployed and uninsured or under-insured at the same time. And more than ever, the idea of a single payer health care system seems imperative to me.
Yet, the people who want to be president have shown no interest in something like that. Congress has shown no interest. About half of the electorate, if not many more, many of whom may get government-provided health care, see no reason to support coverage for others who don't have it. The people who have insurance seem to believe "I got mine; you're on your own." Those who don't have insurance are still using the health care system, but probably at a much higher cost per incident, due to use of emergency departments.
To me, it all comes down to greed, purely and simply. Vermont is ahead of the nation on the way to a single payer healthcare system. I hope it does get implemented. And based on my income, I expect to pay more in taxes for that system that I currently pay for insurance. I'm glad to do that, if I know there will be a safety net there for insurance if and when my job situation isn't what it is today. And yes, I trust the government to implement that system. Medicare and the VA are two of the most efficient health care systems in the US, if not the two most efficient.
Maybe I'm a socialist. So be it.
Week before vacation - Work huge number of hours so feel like things are settled enough that you can leave for a while.
During vacation - check in daily, hope nothing terribly wrong happens, end up un-surprised when you get three phone calls in a single morning while fly fishing.
Week after vacation - Work huge number of hours to try to catch up on what you didn't do last week.
The net result is that I worked as many hours in the three weeks that included my vacation as I would have worked in those three weeks if I hadn't taken vacation. Something seems really, really wrong there, to be honest.
Overall, my vacation was fairly relaxing. Due to the weather, I got out fishing only three days, and I only caught fish on two of those days. The fish in my last post was the biggest fish I caught all week. My son fished with me for a couple days and had about the same results that I had.
I went to a concert. Worked out a lot. Slept a lot. Finished season 4 of Breaking Bad. And now I'm back at work; today starts my second week back.
My wife is also back at work today, which is certainly a relief for her. Being out of work was certainly costly. We paid two months of COBRA coverage for health care - a big chunk of change. And, my wife is not eligible for health care insurance at her new job until December. So, until then, I am using my company's insurance, which is very expensive, has a very high deductible, and requires me to put a significant amount of money into a health savings account. Neither this policy or the COBRA policy is remotely affordable, and on top of losing 9 weeks of pay, the health care costs have been a big hit. Regretfully, none of the people running for President is willing to deal with people caught in a situation like we are going through. I'm not saying that it's the government's job to help me out right now. I do think that our health care system should be different so that no one has to endure what we've just dealt with.
We are lucky, in that we have been able to scrape by without the second income and still pay the health care premiums. But, many people would not be able to do so. Having no health insurance exactly when you need the insurance the most - when your income is reduced or gone - seems absurd to me.
My wife and I have never collected unemployment, never used food stamps, never used welfare, always paid our bills, and played by the rules. And, with college degrees and years of job experience, we are doing OK. I certainly have a new understanding of the hardships people endure when unemployed or underemployed and uninsured or under-insured at the same time. And more than ever, the idea of a single payer health care system seems imperative to me.
Yet, the people who want to be president have shown no interest in something like that. Congress has shown no interest. About half of the electorate, if not many more, many of whom may get government-provided health care, see no reason to support coverage for others who don't have it. The people who have insurance seem to believe "I got mine; you're on your own." Those who don't have insurance are still using the health care system, but probably at a much higher cost per incident, due to use of emergency departments.
To me, it all comes down to greed, purely and simply. Vermont is ahead of the nation on the way to a single payer healthcare system. I hope it does get implemented. And based on my income, I expect to pay more in taxes for that system that I currently pay for insurance. I'm glad to do that, if I know there will be a safety net there for insurance if and when my job situation isn't what it is today. And yes, I trust the government to implement that system. Medicare and the VA are two of the most efficient health care systems in the US, if not the two most efficient.
Maybe I'm a socialist. So be it.
Monday, September 24, 2012
One quick photo
I've just spent the first four hours of my official vacation time doing some work. But, I'm done now. I'm waiting for a car repair to be completed. Then, I'm going to the gym and then going fishing with my son. My son had to work yesterday, but I fished Otter Creek and the New Haven River with a guide yesterday. The fishing was a bit slow, but I caught a few fish. The brown below was the highlight of the day. He (or she) took a bead head Prince Nymph dragged behind a floating grasshopper imitation.
One more on baseball
The 2012 Baltimore Orioles have now won 16 consecutive extra inning games. I assumed that this had to be the all time longest extra innings streak, but it isn't. The 1949 Cleveland Indians won 17 straight in extra innings and went 18-1 overall in extra innings. They had a 71-64 record in games that did not go to extra innings and finished 24 games over .500 at 89-65. This was good enough for third place in the AL.
This was the first year of the Yankees tremendous 1949-1953 streak of winning five consecutive World Series. This was a talented team too, with Bob Feller, Bob Lemon and Early Wynn at the top of their rotation. Satchel Paige started 5 games and had a 4-7 record. He turned 43 in July of that season.
Offensively, they were a solid team, with Larry Doby leading a strong hitting OF, Mickey Vernon at first, and manager Lou Boudreau playing 134 solid games at shortstop.
But, if they went 18-1 in extra inning games, something I'd consider very lucky, they managed to offset it the rest of the year. When I saw that 17 game extra inning winning streak, I was shocked that they weren't in the top 20 all time. But, when I looked at things in more detail, I saw that they'd only won a single game more than the Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball projected. Overall, they outscored their opponents by 101 runs over 154 games, indicating that they should have won 88 games, and they won 89. They outscored their opponents by 26 net runs (86-60) runs in the extra inning games, meaning they outscored their opponents by 75 runs otherwise - 589 to 514.
Because they didn't win all of their extra inning games by a single run, based solely on runs scored, they won an 5.5 more extra inning games than projected. In other words, their extra inning record projects to 12.5-6.5, and yes I know that half wins (ties) are very rare in baseball, unless you have a stupid commissioner make a stupid decision to mess with the All Star game, but that's another issue.
However, in the other 135 games, the Indians were projected to win almost 76 games, but instead, they won only 71. So, their extreme luck in extra inning games was offset by poorer than expected winning percentage in their games that went 9 or fewer innings (they had four sub-9 inning games that year).
So in this case, their one aspect of luck and another aspect of unluckiness essentially cancelled each other.
And, if they'd simply played as expected in the games that didn't go to extra innings, they would have still finished a handful of games behind the Red Sox and the Yankees.
However at the top of the division, the Yankees had finished behind the Red Sox both in offense and pitching. However, the Yankees won 2 more games than might have been projected, Boston won one less, and the Yanks won by a game. This began the greatest string of World Series wins in history, and an era of horrible frustration for Ted Williams and the Red Sox.
Given the lack of comments recently, it's clear that none of my three or four readers is a big baseball fan. So, I'll move on from this subject now.
This was the first year of the Yankees tremendous 1949-1953 streak of winning five consecutive World Series. This was a talented team too, with Bob Feller, Bob Lemon and Early Wynn at the top of their rotation. Satchel Paige started 5 games and had a 4-7 record. He turned 43 in July of that season.
Offensively, they were a solid team, with Larry Doby leading a strong hitting OF, Mickey Vernon at first, and manager Lou Boudreau playing 134 solid games at shortstop.
But, if they went 18-1 in extra inning games, something I'd consider very lucky, they managed to offset it the rest of the year. When I saw that 17 game extra inning winning streak, I was shocked that they weren't in the top 20 all time. But, when I looked at things in more detail, I saw that they'd only won a single game more than the Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball projected. Overall, they outscored their opponents by 101 runs over 154 games, indicating that they should have won 88 games, and they won 89. They outscored their opponents by 26 net runs (86-60) runs in the extra inning games, meaning they outscored their opponents by 75 runs otherwise - 589 to 514.
Because they didn't win all of their extra inning games by a single run, based solely on runs scored, they won an 5.5 more extra inning games than projected. In other words, their extra inning record projects to 12.5-6.5, and yes I know that half wins (ties) are very rare in baseball, unless you have a stupid commissioner make a stupid decision to mess with the All Star game, but that's another issue.
However, in the other 135 games, the Indians were projected to win almost 76 games, but instead, they won only 71. So, their extreme luck in extra inning games was offset by poorer than expected winning percentage in their games that went 9 or fewer innings (they had four sub-9 inning games that year).
So in this case, their one aspect of luck and another aspect of unluckiness essentially cancelled each other.
And, if they'd simply played as expected in the games that didn't go to extra innings, they would have still finished a handful of games behind the Red Sox and the Yankees.
However at the top of the division, the Yankees had finished behind the Red Sox both in offense and pitching. However, the Yankees won 2 more games than might have been projected, Boston won one less, and the Yanks won by a game. This began the greatest string of World Series wins in history, and an era of horrible frustration for Ted Williams and the Red Sox.
Given the lack of comments recently, it's clear that none of my three or four readers is a big baseball fan. So, I'll move on from this subject now.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Luckiest and Unluckiest Baseball Teams - All Time
Being the geek that I claim to be, my analysis of the Orioles 2012 season yesterday seemed incomplete. I said I couldn't find the all time statistics to know if the O's really are one of the 20 luckiest teams in history.
So, I searched the web until I found the statistics I needed to do the calculations myself. I also calculated the expected number of wins using two different exponents in the formula. The original formula uses 2 as the exponent, while a revised version uses an exponent of 1.83, which is what I used here.
For more on the formula, go here.
As I expected, this year's Orioles team is one of the 20 luckiest teams of all time. I was surprised to see them 5th overall though. The first place entry is kind of amazing - a team outscored by almost 100 runs in a season, and they still finished above .500. When I looked at that season in a bit more detail, I saw a team that lost by a lot quite often, but managed to win the closer games. Sort of like this year's Orioles.
It is interesting to note that 6 of the top 20 lucky seasons have occurred in the 21st century.
A few things stand out in this list. The 2004 Yankees are the only team in baseball history to lose a playoff series after leading 3 games to none. But, if they had won the 89 games they were expected to win, the Red Sox would have won the division, and perhaps the Red Sox would not have won their first title since 1918.
The 1970 Reds team went to the World Series, where they lost 4-1 to a 108 win Orioles team. The 1972 Mets didn't go to the World Series, which saw the A's beat the Reds, but in 1973, the Mets did go to the series, where they also lost to the A's.
It's amazing to think how bad the 1943 Braves should have been. And the 1955 Athletics should have lost 100 games.
The 1961 Reds did go to the World Series, but they were beaten easily by the Yankees, who were led by Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle, who combined for 115 home runs that season.
The 1936 Cardinals were two years removed from their 1934 Gashouse Gang championship, but in 1936, they finished 5 games behind the Giants.
Not one team in this list won a World Series. The Reds, twice, are the only team in this list to have even gone to the world series.
And, given their overall statistics, I do not expect this year's Orioles to make it to the world series. But, in short series, anything can happen. The 1988 Dodgers were clearly the worst team in the playoffs, yet they beat a much better Mets team in the NLCS and came within a Mark McGwire home run of sweeping the A's in the series. The great thing about baseball is that anything can happen.
For the sake of completeness, here are the unluckiest teams of all time according to the same formula:
Not surprisingly, none of these teams won a world series, or even went to the series. And, in 1904, there was no series, but Cleveland in 1904 finished only 1.5 games behind the Boston Americans (later the Red Sox), so they clearly should have been AL champions that year.
So, I searched the web until I found the statistics I needed to do the calculations myself. I also calculated the expected number of wins using two different exponents in the formula. The original formula uses 2 as the exponent, while a revised version uses an exponent of 1.83, which is what I used here.
For more on the formula, go here.
As I expected, this year's Orioles team is one of the 20 luckiest teams of all time. I was surprised to see them 5th overall though. The first place entry is kind of amazing - a team outscored by almost 100 runs in a season, and they still finished above .500. When I looked at that season in a bit more detail, I saw a team that lost by a lot quite often, but managed to win the closer games. Sort of like this year's Orioles.
It is interesting to note that 6 of the top 20 lucky seasons have occurred in the 21st century.
| Year | Team | Games | Wins | Losses | Scored | Allowed | ExpPct | ExpWins | Diff |
| 1905 | Detroit Tigers | 154 | 79 | 74 | 512 | 604 | 0.425 | 65.4 | 13.6 |
| 2004 | New York Yankees | 162 | 101 | 61 | 897 | 808 | 0.548 | 88.7 | 12.3 |
| 2008 | Los Angeles Angels | 162 | 100 | 62 | 765 | 697 | 0.542 | 87.9 | 12.1 |
| 1984 | New York Mets | 162 | 90 | 72 | 652 | 676 | 0.483 | 78.3 | 11.7 |
| 2012 | Baltimore Orioles | 149 | 85 | 64 | 653 | 663 | 0.493 | 73.5 | 11.5 |
| 1954 | Brooklyn Dodgers | 154 | 92 | 62 | 778 | 740 | 0.523 | 80.5 | 11.5 |
| 1970 | Cincinnati Reds | 162 | 102 | 60 | 775 | 681 | 0.559 | 90.5 | 11.5 |
| 1972 | New York Mets | 156 | 83 | 73 | 528 | 578 | 0.459 | 71.6 | 11.4 |
| 1924 | Brooklyn Robins | 154 | 92 | 62 | 717 | 679 | 0.525 | 80.8 | 11.2 |
| 2005 | Arizona Diamondbacks | 162 | 77 | 85 | 696 | 856 | 0.406 | 65.8 | 11.2 |
| 2007 | Arizona Diamondbacks | 162 | 90 | 72 | 712 | 732 | 0.487 | 78.9 | 11.1 |
| 1943 | Boston Braves | 153 | 68 | 85 | 465 | 612 | 0.377 | 57.7 | 10.3 |
| 1961 | Cincinnati Reds | 154 | 93 | 61 | 710 | 653 | 0.538 | 82.9 | 10.1 |
| 1932 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 154 | 86 | 68 | 701 | 711 | 0.494 | 76.0 | 10.0 |
| 1955 | Kansas City Athletics | 155 | 63 | 91 | 638 | 911 | 0.343 | 53.1 | 9.9 |
| 1997 | San Francisco Giants | 162 | 90 | 72 | 784 | 793 | 0.495 | 80.2 | 9.8 |
| 2009 | Seattle Mariners | 162 | 85 | 77 | 640 | 692 | 0.464 | 75.2 | 9.8 |
| 1917 | St. Louis Cardinals | 154 | 82 | 70 | 531 | 567 | 0.470 | 72.4 | 9.6 |
| 1977 | Baltimore Orioles | 161 | 97 | 64 | 719 | 653 | 0.544 | 87.6 | 9.4 |
| 1936 | St. Louis Cardinals | 155 | 87 | 67 | 795 | 794 | 0.501 | 77.6 | 9.4 |
A few things stand out in this list. The 2004 Yankees are the only team in baseball history to lose a playoff series after leading 3 games to none. But, if they had won the 89 games they were expected to win, the Red Sox would have won the division, and perhaps the Red Sox would not have won their first title since 1918.
The 1970 Reds team went to the World Series, where they lost 4-1 to a 108 win Orioles team. The 1972 Mets didn't go to the World Series, which saw the A's beat the Reds, but in 1973, the Mets did go to the series, where they also lost to the A's.
It's amazing to think how bad the 1943 Braves should have been. And the 1955 Athletics should have lost 100 games.
The 1961 Reds did go to the World Series, but they were beaten easily by the Yankees, who were led by Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle, who combined for 115 home runs that season.
The 1936 Cardinals were two years removed from their 1934 Gashouse Gang championship, but in 1936, they finished 5 games behind the Giants.
Not one team in this list won a World Series. The Reds, twice, are the only team in this list to have even gone to the world series.
And, given their overall statistics, I do not expect this year's Orioles to make it to the world series. But, in short series, anything can happen. The 1988 Dodgers were clearly the worst team in the playoffs, yet they beat a much better Mets team in the NLCS and came within a Mark McGwire home run of sweeping the A's in the series. The great thing about baseball is that anything can happen.
For the sake of completeness, here are the unluckiest teams of all time according to the same formula:
| Year | Team | Games | Wins | Losses | Scored | Allowed | ExpPct | ExpWins | Diff |
| 1993 | New York Mets | 162 | 59 | 103 | 672 | 744 | 0.454 | 73.5 | -14.5 |
| 1905 | Chicago Cubs | 155 | 92 | 61 | 667 | 442 | 0.680 | 105.4 | -13.4 |
| 1986 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 162 | 64 | 98 | 663 | 700 | 0.475 | 77.0 | -13.0 |
| 1907 | Cincinnati Reds | 156 | 66 | 87 | 526 | 519 | 0.506 | 79.0 | -13.0 |
| 1911 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 155 | 85 | 69 | 744 | 557 | 0.629 | 97.6 | -12.6 |
| 1935 | Boston Braves | 153 | 38 | 115 | 575 | 852 | 0.327 | 50.1 | -12.1 |
| 1984 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 162 | 75 | 87 | 615 | 567 | 0.537 | 87.0 | -12.0 |
| 1975 | Houston Astros | 162 | 64 | 97 | 664 | 711 | 0.469 | 75.9 | -11.9 |
| 1906 | Cleveland Naps | 157 | 89 | 64 | 663 | 481 | 0.643 | 100.9 | -11.9 |
| 1905 | St. Louis Browns | 156 | 54 | 99 | 512 | 608 | 0.422 | 65.8 | -11.8 |
| 1967 | Baltimore Orioles | 161 | 76 | 85 | 654 | 592 | 0.545 | 87.8 | -11.8 |
| 1937 | Cincinnati Reds | 155 | 56 | 98 | 612 | 706 | 0.435 | 67.4 | -11.4 |
| 1904 | Cleveland Naps | 154 | 86 | 65 | 647 | 482 | 0.632 | 97.3 | -11.3 |
| 1939 | St. Louis Browns | 156 | 43 | 111 | 733 | 1035 | 0.347 | 54.2 | -11.2 |
| 1999 | Kansas City Royals | 161 | 64 | 97 | 856 | 921 | 0.467 | 75.1 | -11.1 |
| 1924 | St. Louis Cardinals | 154 | 65 | 89 | 740 | 750 | 0.494 | 76.1 | -11.1 |
| 1946 | Philadelphia Athletics | 155 | 49 | 105 | 529 | 680 | 0.387 | 60.0 | -11.0 |
| 2006 | Cleveland Indians | 162 | 78 | 84 | 870 | 782 | 0.549 | 88.9 | -10.9 |
| 1919 | Washington Senators | 142 | 56 | 84 | 533 | 570 | 0.469 | 66.6 | -10.6 |
| 1993 | San Diego Padres | 162 | 61 | 101 | 679 | 772 | 0.442 | 71.5 | -10.5 |
Not surprisingly, none of these teams won a world series, or even went to the series. And, in 1904, there was no series, but Cleveland in 1904 finished only 1.5 games behind the Boston Americans (later the Red Sox), so they clearly should have been AL champions that year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)