As Cubs fans and non-Cubs fans alike celebrate the end of the 108-year drought, we have overlooked the fact that in winning, the Cubs also bucked two trends in major league baseball:

1. 100+ win teams struggle in the postseason and rarely win the World Series, especially since the wild-card era began in 1995
2. Losers of the ALCS and NLCS (Cubs lost 2015 NLCS) historically decline the following season, both in win total and playoff appearance/outcome

Below is a table to quantify a team’s performance in the playoffs:

*The LCS was a best-of-five-game series from 1969 through 1984

It is important to acknowledge how close a team comes to winning a particular round. Based on a 0 to 4 scale, with 0 indicating the team missed the playoffs and 4 indicating the team won the World Series, the table credits fractions of a whole point for each playoff win. For example, in a best-of-seven-game series, each win (four wins needed to clinch) is worth 0.25. In a best-of-five-game series, each win (three wins needed to clinch) is worth 0.333 (1/3). Any mention of playoff result or average playoff result in this article is derived from this table.

THE STRUGGLE OF 100+ WIN TEAMS IN THE POST-SEASON

Playoff baseball, due to its small sample size and annual flair for the dramatic, historically has not treated exceptional regular season teams well. Jayson Stark recently wrote an article for ESPN titled, “Why superteams don’t win the World Series.” He noted that only twice in the first 21 seasons of the wild-card era had a team with the best record in baseball won the World Series (1998 and 2009 Yankees). Those two Yankee teams are also the only two 100-win ball clubs in the wild-card era to win the World Series. Research in this article will span the years 1969 to 2015, with 1969 being the first year of the league championship series (LCS).

Entering the 2016 season there had been 47 100+ win teams since the start of the 1969 season. Of those, 10 (21.3%) won the World Series. Other than those 10 World Series winners, how did 100+ win teams fare in the post-season?

Below are the average playoff results for 100+ win teams in each period of the major league baseball playoff structure from 1969 to 2015. The playoff structures were as follows:

1969-1984: LCS (best of 5 games) + World Series (best of 7 games)

1985-1993: LCS (best of 7 games) + World Series (best of 7 games)

1995-present: LDS (best of 5 games) + LCS (best of 7 games) + World Series (best of 7 games)

The wild-card game (2012-present) is omitted because a 100+ win team has yet to play in that game, although it certainly would be rare if we ever see a 100+ win team playing in the wild-card game.

As the data shows, 100+ win teams during the 1969-1984 period on average made a World Series appearance. This could be partly due to the fact there was only one round of playoffs (the LCS) ahead of the World Series, with the LCS being a best of five games. It was certainly a much easier path to the World Series once a team made the playoffs, yet on average 100+ win teams were finishing with a World Series sweep.

Changing the LCS from a best-of-five-game series to a best-of-seven-game series had a negative impact on team post-season performance, as 100+ win teams during the 1985-1993 span on average lost a deciding Game Seven in the LCS.

When the league added the wild card and LDS in 1995, it expanded the opportunity to make the playoffs but made the path to a World Series title more difficult, for a team now had to win 11 games to hoist the trophy. In the wild-card era, 100+ win teams are on average losing 4-1 in the LCS. This period also has the lowest percentage of 100+ win teams winning the World Series.

Using average playoff result standard deviation and a normal distribution, we can also see that the likelihood of a 100+ win team to win the World Series has had a significant decrease over the past several decades, left at under 7% during the wild-card era. The longevity of 100+ win teams in the playoffs has been trending downward over the past several decades. Despite being on the verge of a World Series defeat, the Cubs were able to successfully break through and buck a trend that had haunted outstanding regular-season teams for decades, especially since the wild-card era began in 1995.

THE CURSE OF THE LCS DEFEAT

The 2015 Cubs lost to the Mets in the NLCS yet bounced back in 2016 to have an even better regular season and win the World Series. This, however, was a rare feat. Teams that lose in the LCS historically win fewer regular-season games and perform worse on average in the post-season (if they make it) the following year. Below are two charts (1969-2015 and 1995-2015) that display average win differential, average playoff result, likelihood win differential is greater than +5 (2016 Cubs were +6), and the likelihood of winning the World Series.

Due to the 1981 and 1994 strikes, a few data points for win differential and playoff result are not included in the calculation. The data set includes 82 LCS losers for win differential and 88 LCS losers for average playoff result. The 1980-81, 1981-82, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 win differentials are not included for LCS losers in both leagues. The 1994 and 1995 playoff results are not included for LCS losers in both leagues because there was no post-season in 1994, hence no LCS loser. Regardless, there is a notable trend among LCS losers to perform worse the following season.

The 2016 Cubs not only won six more regular-season games than in 2015, but they became only the seventh team in history to lose the LCS one season and win the World Series the following season (1971 Pirates, 1972 Athletics, 1985 Royals, 1992 Blue Jays, 2004 Red Sox, 2006 Cardinals). Two of the previous six teams repeated as champions: 1973 Athletics and 1993 Blue Jays. Most recently, the 2005 Red Sox lost 3-0 in the ALDS and the 2007 Cardinals failed to make the playoffs.

LOOKING FORWARD

The Cubs have already been pegged favorites to win the 2017 World Series, which isn’t surprising given the fact nearly every key player is under team control. Is history on their side? Winning back-to-back titles is difficult in today’s competitive league, as new baseball thinking has somewhat evened the playing field and the small sample size of post-season baseball has the ability to lend unexpected results.

The 10 100+ win teams who have won the World Series since 1969 historically have not been successful in their attempts for back-to-back titles. Below are the average win differentials and average playoff result for these teams in the season following their championship:

Only three of these 10 teams (1975-76 Reds, 1977-78 Yankees, 1998-99 Yankees) have repeated as champions. Can the 2017 Cubs be the fourth? No matter the numbers, the 2017 Cubs still have to perform on the field. They were on the brink of losing the World Series in 2016, so we must not take anything for granted. But despite this, there’s no doubt the 2017 Cubs will be in a good position for a repeat. The Cubs are expected to be MLB’s best regular season team in 2017, according to FanGraphs and Jeff Sullivan’s analysis in his November 11, 2016 article. Only time will tell.

Despite their World Series Game 5 win, the Cubs came under fire Monday morning for their lack of hustle. On Mike & Mike ESPN Radio, Mike Greenberg commented that the Cubs seem to be lacking hustle, as evidenced by slow home-plate-to-first-base times by Jorge Soler on his Game 3 triple and Anthony Rizzo on his Game 5 double. Soler assumed a fly out or foul ball, and Rizzo assumed a go-ahead home run. Buster Olney added, “It’s interesting you say that, because I had a conversation with one of the veterans in this World Series…and that’s exactly what he said. ‘This is the World Series, how can that happen? It’s a different generation.’”

That’s right, this is the World Series, the biggest baseball stage, the postseason when even average fans tune in to watch and learn from some of the best players in the game. In today’s baseball market worth billions, where players in their late teens and early twenties are paid 10 or more times the average American salary, maybe a lapse in hustle or a hard 90-time is acceptable, if not necessary, during the regular season of 162 games in order to avoid injury or excessive exhaustion. You wouldn’t want your star player pulling a hamstring on a routine infield groundball in August, would you? Of course not. But c’mon, this is the World Series! Most of these players have never played for higher stakes. Is the “lack of hustle” a generational problem? What ever happened to the commitment Joe DiMaggio had to playing hard just in case someone was watching for the first or last time?

Your organization hasn’t won a title in 108 years. Why wouldn’t you approach every play as if it was the last? You’d think they would in the World Series; especially given Game 5 could have been the last. Greenberg and Olney failed to even mention Javier Baez’s Game 5, second-inning strikeout where he refused to run to first base on a dropped third strike, looking increasingly frustrated with his World Series offense (2 for 18 with 7 strikeouts, and 16 runners left on base after that at bat).

Let’s take a look at some numbers by analyzing the Win Expectancy (WE) for the Cubs before and after each of these three plays (Soler’s triple, Baez’s strikeout, and Rizzo’s double) to show the importance of maximizing every opportunity and play. These three players were caught up in the moment and took things for granted on the biggest stage of their sport, a time when small mental errors could make the ultimate difference in winning a game and the championship. We’ll also look at the WE if each play had ended with a different outcome. All WE are obtained from The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman and Andrew Dolphin.

Jorge Soler (Age 24)

Game 3, Series tied 1-1

Bottom 7^th, Cubs trailing 1-0 with 2 outs

Triple to right field

WE before at bat: 29.1%

WE after triple: 35.0%

WE after next batter ends inning 26.5%

For the sake of this article, let’s assume (which is assuming a lot with an inside-the-park home run) Soler runs hard out of the batter’s box and rounds the bases for an inside-the-park home run, tying the game. The WE for the Cubs would have jumped to 52.2%, a major swing (nearly double) from where that inning ended. The Cubs lost that game 1-0 to give the Indians a 2-1 series lead.

Javier Baez (Age 23)

Game 5, Indians leading series 3-1, Cubs one loss from elimination

Bottom 2^nd, Cubs trailing 1-0 with 2 outs and a runner on 1^st

Strikeout, dropped third strike (ball in dirt), Baez does not run to 1^st base

WE before at bat: 41.9%

WE after strikeout: 39.4%

Again, for the sake of this article, let’s assume Baez runs hard to first on the dropped third strike and reaches base, which rarely ever happens in Major League Baseball. However, this is the World Series and Game 5 is an elimination game. You never know what can happen. Though the data for the number of baserunners reaching on a dropped third strike isn’t available, such instance would be scored with either a passed ball or wild pitch on the play (a battery error). Take a look at the number of passed balls and wild pitches in MLB over the past 10 seasons, as provided by Baseball Reference.

A catcher is scored with a passed ball on average every 14-15 games, while a pitcher is scored with a wild pitch on average every third game. If anyone can provide data for the number of times a batter has reached base on a dropped third strike, it would only strengthen the claim that Baez’s chances of reaching base were slim. Regardless, remember it’s an elimination game in the World Series. For the sake of proving a point, let’s look at the scenarios if Baez had reached base.

The ball did skip quite a distance from catcher Robert Perez, so let’s take a look at WE if Baez reached first, leaving the Cubs with runners on first and second with 2 outs: 44.1%.

How about if Roberto Perez threw the ball away into right field, causing a 1^st and 3^rd situation (let’s note that catcher errors are also very rare): 45%.

Even though Baez reaching first base on a dropped third strike (which was far from guaranteed by running) would have only added about 5-6% to the Cubs WE, there is no excuse for Baez to have a lapse of effort and allow Perez an easy, no-pressure throw to first base because there was no runner hustling down the line. At the very least, run hard and make it look good for the millions of people watching. Not to mention the thousands of people who spent a week’s wage on tickets to Wrigley. They, along with your teammates, want to see you running to first base instead of walking back to the dugout.

Instead, the Cubs were left with their two weakest hitters (David Ross and Jon Lester) to lead off the next inning, which resulted in a 1-2-3 inning for Indians starting pitcher Trevor Bauer, who took a 1-0 lead into the fourth inning.

Anthony Rizzo (Age 27)

Game 5, Indians leading series 3-1, Cubs one loss from elimination

Bottom 4^th, game tied 1-1, 0 outs, first batter after Kris Bryant game-tying home run

Double to right field

WE before at bat (after Bryant home run): 56.3%

WE after double: 63.4%

The back-to-back extra-base hits certainly turned the momentum of the game in the Cubs’ favor. Two batters (Bryant and Rizzo) increased the Cubs’ WE from 43.7% to 63.4%, a major increase in a game they eventually won 3-2 to force a trip back to Cleveland for Game 6.

A better throw from right field would have made a very close play at second base, so let’s look at the WE for the Cubs had Rizzo been thrown out at second base on his hit off the right-field ivy: 53.4%. His lack of hustle from home plate to first base, as he admired what he thought was a go-ahead home run, could have cost the Cubs 10% on their WE.

Conclusion

There is certainly no guarantee that any individual exertion of hustle will lead to a different outcome in a baseball game. Running out a groundball will not guarantee an infield hit, but it puts pressure on the fielder to make a clean play. Running hard on a fly ball has no measurable effect on whether a fielder will catch it or not, but it puts the runner in the best possible position to advance an extra base on a rare dropped ball. Running hard to first base after a dropped third strike does not make a difference in the outcome of the play 99% of the time, and it certainly doesn’t change the 0-for-1 with a strikeout in the box score. But it puts pressure on the catcher to retrieve the ball in a clean manner and make an accurate throw to first base. Let’s not forget that hustle is the right thing to do. It’s more about the precedent, not the result. It’s about the example we want MLB players on the biggest stage to set for younger players worldwide. DiMaggio likely wouldn’t recognize some aspects of today’s game. He, like many other players, never took anything for granted. Despite the fact that Soler and Rizzo still ended up with extra-base hits, and Baez most likely would have been thrown out at first base anyway, shouldn’t we hope that on this kind of stage the very best will play the game to its absolute potential?