Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Back in March, I asked all of you to foresee which teams would improve by 10 games in 2006, and which would decline by 10 games.

The 2007 results are in (tomorrow's playoff notwithstanding.) So here are our Snakes and Ladders teams from 2007:

2007
Ladders (6) - Chicago Cubs (+19), Cleveland (+18), Arizona (+14), Colorado (+13), Boston (+10), Seattle (+10)
Snakes (3) - Chicago White Sox (-18), Minnesota (-17), Oakland (-17)

Remarkably, only three teams tumbled down the Snakes, the lowest figure since... oh, further back than I can be bothered to check. It was close. The expansion cousins from New York and Houston both staved off inclusion by a single game - each ended up 9 games worse than they were in 2006. Cincinnati slipped by 8 games, Detroit by 7, the Dodgers by 6, Texas by 5.

And now we can examine the comments, hidden these many months, and discover Who Saw it All Coming!

The rest of the original piece follows, providing the previous ten years of Snakes and Ladders.

2006
Ladders (4) - Detroit (+24), L.A. Dodgers (+17), N.Y. Mets (+14), Minnesota (+13)
Snakes (5) - St. Louis (-17), Cleveland (-15), Chicago Cubs (-13), Atlanta (-11), Washington (-10)

2005
Ladders (7) - Arizona (+26), Chicago White Sox (+16), Milwaukee (+14), Washington (+14), Cleveland (+13), Toronto (+13), N.Y. Mets (+12)
Snakes (4) - Texas (-10), Chicago Cubs (-10), San Francisco (-16), L.A. Dodgers (-22)

2004
Ladders (6) - Detroit (+29), San Diego (+23), St. Louis (+20), Texas (+18), Anaheim (+15), Cleveland (+12)
Snakes (5) - Montreal (-16), Toronto (-19), Kansas City (-25), Seattle (-30), Arizona (-33)

2003
Ladders (4) - Kansas City (+21), Chicago Cubs (+21), Milwaukee (+12), Florida (+12)
Snakes (4) - Detroit (-12), St. Louis (-12), Arizona (-14), Anaheim (-22)

2002
Ladders (6) - Anaheim (+24), Montreal (+15), Atlanta (+13), Cincinnati (+12), Boston (+11), Pittsburgh (+10)
Snakes (6) - Detroit (-11), Milwaukee (-12), San Diego (-13), Cleveland (-17), Chicago Cubs (-21), Seattle (-23)

2001
Ladders (6) - Seattle (+25), Chicago Cubs (+23), Houston (+21), Philadelphia (+21), Minnesota (+16), Oakland (+11)
Snakes (6) - Baltimore (-11), Chicago White Sox (-12), Kansas City (-12), N.Y. Mets (-12), Detroit (-13), Cincinnati (-19)

2000
Ladders (9) - Chicago White Sox (+20), St. Louis (+20), Florida (+15), Kansas City (+13), Anaheim (+12), Seattle (+12), San Francisco (+11), Colorado (+10), Detroit (+10)
Snakes (6) - N.Y. Yankees (-11), Cincinnati (-11), Philadelphia (-12), Arizona (-15), Texas (-24), Houston (-25)

1999
Ladders (4) - Arizona (+35), Cincinnati (+19), Oakland (+13), Florida (+10)
Snakes (4) - Anaheim (-15), N.Y. Yankees (-16), Chicago Cubs (-23), San Diego (-24),

1998
Ladders (8) - Chicago Cubs (+22), San Diego (+22), N.Y, Yankees (+18), Houston (+18), Boston (+14), Toronto (+12), Texas (+11), St. Louis (+10)
Snakes (6) - Pittsburgh (-10), Montreal (-13), Detroit (-14), Seattle (-14), Baltimore (-19), Florida (-38)

1997
Ladders (6) - Detroit (-26), San Francisco (+22), N.Y. Mets (+17), Anaheim (+14), Florida (+12), Baltimore (+10)
Snakes (7) - Minnesota (-10), Montreal (-10), Cleveland (-13), Oakland (-13), Texas (-13), St. Louis (-15), San Diego (-15)

The bolded teams, of course, are your World Series champions. While it seems reasonable enough to find five teams winning it all who had improved by 10+ games that season, it's somewhat startling that three of the last ten world series champions were among that season's handful of teams who declined by ten or more games.

Hmmm. I seem to notice the same teams over and over again, going up and down, up and down. How often do the teams play this old board game? This calls for a Data Table!

Team              Ladders!    Snakes!    Seasons

Detroit 4 4 8
Chicago Cubs 3 4 7
Anaheim 4 2 6
St. Louis 3 3 6
Montreal/Washington 2 4 6
Arizona 2 3 5
Cleveland 2 3 5
San Diego 2 3 5
Seattle 2 3 5
Texas 2 3 5
Florida 3 1 4
NY Mets 3 1 4
Cincinnati 2 2 4
Kansas City 2 2 4
Milwaukee 2 2 4
Chicago White Sox 2 1 3
Houston 2 1 3
Milwaukee 2 1 3
Oakland 2 1 3
San Francisco 2 1 3
Toronto 2 1 3
Baltimore 1 2 3
NY Yankees 1 2 3
Boston 2 0 2
Atlanta 1 1 2
LA Dodgers 1 1 2
Philadelphia 1 1 2
Pittsburgh 1 1 2
Colorado 1 0 1
Tampa Bay 0 0 0

Tampa Bay has never played Snakes and Ladders! They and Arizona have only been around for nine of these ten seasons. The Devil Rays, of course, have been a model of consistency over that time...

And no one likes playing our game more than the Tigers. This alone almost makes me want to predict an 83-79 season for them.

We note that everybody, except the Devil Rays, has enjoyed a 10 game bump from one season to the next; and everybody except Colorado, Boston, and those amazing Devil Rays has taken a 10 game slide at some point or another.

It makes a certain amount of sense that things that leap into the air quite frequently fall back to earth, and they who fall down often pick themselves up. As Alex said the other day, in a phrase I plan to steal so relentlessly that everyone will think it's mine, Regression to the Mean is a Cruel Mistress. What is far less common are teams leaping into the air, and then leaping once again. There are exactly four instances of that: Seattle (2000-2001), Florida (1999-2000), Cleveland (2004-2005), and the New York Mets (2005-2006).

The Mets will need 107 wins to make it three 10+ game improvements in a row. That's a feat which has been accomplished exactly once in the last hundred years - by the Boston Red Sox of 1907-1909. The 1982-84 Twins and 1995-97 Marlins each improved their win total by 10+ games all three years, but in each case this was entirely because the first of the three seasons immediately followed a season that had been drastically shortened by a work stoppage. Their actual winning percentages tell a different tale, and I have Disqualified them.

Those old Red Sox, starring the famous Rough Bill Carrigan (Liam's great-uncle, he's quite famous around my house) are not the only team to achieve this trifecta, by the way - the 1884-86 Phillies also pulled off three straight 10+ game improvements, and they did it playing a 112 game schedule which makes it even more remarkable.

The saddest story, one would think, is a team that tumbles by 10 or more games and then tumbles again. Hello, Cubs fans (2005-2006)! And we do have a team of recent vintage that has pulled off this depressing feat three years running - that would be the Detroit Tigers of 2001-2003. The Cubs and Tigers are not alone in their dismay in recent years. They are joined by Montreal (1997-1998) and Arizona (2003-2004). And by the New York Yankees of 1999-2000. Yes, the back-to-back World Series winners. Of course, when you're following a 114 win World Series champion, you can come a long way down the mountain and still be higher than most of the other guys...

So yes, Cubs fans, the Tigers are here to tell you that three in a row is possible. In fact, the Cubs have done it before. Now it was quite a long time ago, I admit - 1899 through 1901, to be precise - and the schedule was more than a little erratic. The Cubs won 75, 65, and 53 games in those three seasons. However they played 148, 140, and 139 games, so I suppose it shouldn't count. If we give them those 8 extra games in 1900, they'd surely have won one of them. Even though they were Cubs...

But nothing, nothing can diminish the unique accomplishment of the Philadelphia Athletics of the Great Depression. Age cannot wither, nor custom stale what happened when Connie Mack was forced to sell off his good players. From 1932 through 1935, the A's won 94, 79, 68, and 58 games.

Now that's slipping down snakes into yesterday's news...

Anyway - history tells us that each year at least four teams will climb the ladder and another four will slide down the snake.

Tell me who.
Snakes and Ladders: Updated! | 25 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pistol - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 08:53 AM EDT (#164723) #
Up 10+ wins (last year's wins in parenthesis):  Tampa Bay (61), Cubs (66), Arizona (76), Cleveland (78)
Down 10+ wins:  Mets (97), Washington (71), Oakland (93), Detroit (95)

Magpie - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 09:17 AM EDT (#164724) #
Ladders (+10) - Atlanta, Milwaukee, Chicago Cubs, Texas, Tampa BAy
Snakes (-10) - NY Mets, Florida, Oakland, Detroit, NY Yankees

3RunHomer - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 10:51 AM EDT (#164726) #
Ladders: Orioles, Cubbies, Royals, Devil Fishees (everyone's fav!)
Snakes: Yankees, Angels, Giants, White Sox
CeeBee - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM EDT (#164727) #

Ladders(+10)  Cleveland, Tampa, Atlanta, Chicago Cubs, Arizona

Snakes(-10) NY Yankees, Minnesota, NY Mets, Houston

Rob - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 11:10 AM EDT (#164728) #
In the last two years, seven out of nine teams who fell at least ten games were in the NL? Why does that not surprise me?

Ladders: Cleveland; Tampa Bay; San Francisco; Atlanta; the Cubs
Snakes: Washington (that hurts); San Diego; Minnesota; and what the hell, the Mets.

Not sure why, but it was much easier to think of possible +10 teams than -10 teams. I was stuck on the Nationals forever.
HollywoodHartman - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 11:25 AM EDT (#164730) #
Last year we only had to do 2 of each....

Ladders

Cubs, Atlanta, Cleveland, Arizona

Snakes

Washington, Minnesota, Detroit, NYM

einsof - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 12:14 PM EDT (#164735) #

Ladders-- TB-- Tex-- Cubs-- Milw

Snakes-- Det -- StL -- SF --NYY

Dadey - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 02:47 PM EDT (#164737) #

Ladders = Chicago (66),

Snakes= Mets (97), Oakland (93)

Mike Green - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 03:59 PM EDT (#164739) #
Ladders- Indians, D-Rays, Cubs (D'Backs would be my 4th choice, but I think that they'll fall a few games short)
Snakes- Nationals, Giants, (a bunch of teams will be off 6-7 games- Twins, Tigers, Yankees, A's, Mets)

If I'm required to pick 2 of the snakes, I'd go with the Twins and A's. 

Nick - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 07:33 PM EDT (#164746) #
Ladders - Tampa, Cubs, Phillies, Cleveland
Snakes - Twins, Tigers, Mets, Oakland

topherkris - Sunday, March 25 2007 @ 10:52 PM EDT (#164752) #
Seattle, Colorado, Atlanta, and Cleveland ladder it up.
Yankees, Twins, Tigers, and The Mets snake it down.

Why not?

AWeb - Monday, March 26 2007 @ 01:26 AM EDT (#164754) #
Ladder Up: Texas, Tampa Bay, Cubs, Arizona
Snake Down : Yankees, Houston, Twins

And yes, some of these might outright contradict predictions in another thread.


youngid - Monday, March 26 2007 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#164761) #
Ladders: 
Cleveland - Even if they just get to their pythagorean mark from last year, they'll be close.  Improving young players will push them the rest of the way
Philadelphia - I think they're going to win the NL east, riding the heart of their lineup and deep starting pitching
Milwaukee - Nice starting pitching if Sheets stays healthy (big if, I know) and solid developing infield. 
Arizona - Deep rotation, tons of promising young players

Snakes:
NYM - Everyone's calling this one, starting pitching is obviously the issue
Florida - With Girardi gone, I'm betting on a big sophomore slump after the surprisingly good season last year.
Cincinnati - Does anyone really believe Bronson Arroyo is that good?
Minnesota - Without Liriano, they're 10 games down.  Ponson/Ortiz/Silva are in the rotation.

#2JBrumfield - Monday, March 26 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT (#164769) #

Like I know anything but here goes.........

AL Ladders - Cleveland, Baltimore, Boston, Texas

AL Snakes - Minnesota, Detroit, Seattle, Oakland

NL Ladders - Milwaukee, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago Cubs

NL Snakes - New York Mets, Florida, Washington, Cincinnati

 

#2JBrumfield - Monday, March 26 2007 @ 07:04 PM EDT (#164770) #

Let me try this again - I misunderstood.   I believe I screwed this up last year so I'll pare down my choices in half.

AL Ladders..

1. Cleveland (good line-up, improved bullpen)

2. Baltimore (improved pen, decent rotation with another year under Mazzone's tutelage)

AL Snakes...

1.  Minnesota - Their rotation won't be as bad as everyone thinks but Morneau and Mauer will come back to earth a little bit.

2.  Detroit - St. Louis exposed their weakness, just keep bunting.  I don't know if Kenny Rogers can do what he did again, if Todd Jones can continue getting away with his slop, and I think Verlander takes a step back.

NL Ladders -

1.  Milwaukee - If Sheets can stay healthy, they should easily clear .500.  Adding Suppan didn't hurt either despite the price tag. The rotation is decent and if Turnbow pitches like it's 2005, he and Cordero will form a nice back end of the pen.

2.  Atlanta - Improved their pen big time with Gonzalez and Soriano.  Those late inning losses should turn to wins this season.

NL Snakes -

1.  New York Mets - The rotation is old and hurting.  If Perez pitches like it's 2004 and Pelfrey's the real deal, maybe they'll be arlight.

2.  Florida - Sophomore jinx.  Maybe they should've kept Girardi.

Sorry for the double post!! :)

 

jeff mcl - Monday, March 26 2007 @ 07:59 PM EDT (#164773) #
Snakes: CLE, STL, CUBS, TAM (I see a surprising second half run after they trade a couple of those 4-5-tool outfielders and Jorge Cantu for someone who can pitch,  Seth McClung also morphs into a reliable closer)

Ladders: CHISOX, DET, CIN, WSH

And by the strangest statistical annomoly in the history of baseball, the 2007 standings for both the AL and NL West are exactly same as they were in 2006.

Anders - Monday, March 26 2007 @ 08:34 PM EDT (#164775) #
Snakes: Cleveland, Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee
Ladders: Minnesota, Detroit, Oakland, Florida

Mike Green - Monday, October 01 2007 @ 09:59 AM EDT (#174915) #
As a group, we did pretty well.  The hardest to predict were the White Sox and the Rox.  I got neither, some of us got one of them, but none got both. 
Mike D - Monday, October 01 2007 @ 10:23 AM EDT (#174917) #
Speaking of said Rockies, does anyone know if tonight's wild card playoff game will be televised in Toronto, and if so, on what network?  Sportsnet does not list it on its website.
alsiem - Monday, October 01 2007 @ 10:57 AM EDT (#174918) #
ESPN is reporting that it will be on TBS.   Not sure if that applies to Canada but that is where I'll be looking.  7:37 if I remember correctly.
Tom Servo - Monday, October 01 2007 @ 03:47 PM EDT (#174926) #
Sportsnet is carrying the Padres/Rockies game tonight at 7:30.
CeeBee - Monday, October 01 2007 @ 08:10 PM EDT (#174930) #

"Sportsnet is carrying the Padres/Rockies game tonight at 7:30."

And in HD as well. :)... Go Rockies!!!

Andrew - Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 12:40 AM EDT (#174933) #
Wow wow wow wow wow.

What can I say that isn't obvious about that game? Not too much. So I'll talk about the series coming up: I am super pumped for Rockies/Phillies. Troy Tulowitzki is going to destroy.

seeyou - Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 01:39 AM EDT (#174935) #
Damn, I'm with you 100% Andrew.  I didn't start watching until the 7th inning, but wow, what a finish. 

I've always had trouble getting really into the playoffs when the Jays are out of it (especially since it coincides with the start of the hockey season), but I'm pretty gung ho about cheering for the Rockies this year (exciting team, great young players, Canadian ace).
Snakes and Ladders: Updated! | 25 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.