October 27, 2005

What a bummer. I'll have more later, but for now, there's no definition of the word "unsuccessful" that accurately describes this season for the Astros. They have nothing to be ashamed of, and they have every right to be proud of themselves no matter how badly they may feel now. Until the day that they do win a World Series, 2005 is and will be the best year in their history. Congratulations to the White Sox for their historic win, and congratulations to the Astros for their historic season.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2005 to Baseball | TrackBack

What's the percentage of teams that win in their first World Series appearance?

Posted by: Michael on October 27, 2005 5:59 AM

Considering that the Astros were 15-30 at one point, I can not consider this season to be a failure. To be honest, I consider the Cardinals loss in the NLCS to be more of a failure than the Astros loss in the World Series.

Posted by: William Hughes on October 27, 2005 6:21 AM

The shame of it is that a lot of people will assume, based solely on the fact that they got swept, that the Astros were no match for the Sox, but I really don't think that's the case. All four games could have gone the other way. The Sox just got the breaks and did better in the clutch.

Posted by: Sue on October 27, 2005 7:05 AM

Michael - According to Baseball Prospectus author Jim Baker, first-time teams are now 10-9 overall in the World Series. That's counting the Astros this year, and factoring out Series involving two first-time teams.

The Stros do have the unfortunate distinction of being the first Series novices to get swept. The 1907 Tigers did not win a game, but they did have a tie in their loss to the Cubs.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2005 8:04 AM

but they did have a tie in their loss to the Cubs.

A tie? I don't know how they determined ties back then, but it would seem to me that Game 3 might have been considered a tie if they were still allowed today.

Posted by: Mike Thomas on October 27, 2005 12:20 PM

If it's any consolation, the Dodgers had been in a bunch of WS before finally winning in 1955.

Posted by: Linkmeister on October 27, 2005 1:13 PM

Mike - Ties were fairly common in the early days, when all games were played in daylight. Basically, if it got too dark to play, they stopped, and if no team was leading, it was a tie. There were ties in the World Series that I know of as late as 1922. As with today, ties do not count in the standings, but individual game statistics do count, as opposed to mid-game rainouts where everything that happened gets wiped away.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2005 1:57 PM

Did you agree with the decision to replace Backe with Lidge?
Hint Hint: I sure would love a retro Houston Astro jersey!

Posted by: Your Sister on October 27, 2005 2:13 PM