It’s clear from the chart that there is some correlation between a team’s first 10 games and the rest of the season. Out of the 39 teams that won three or fewer of their first ten games, only the 2002 Angels finished the season with 90 or more wins. (After starting the season 3-7, that Angels team won 99 games and the World Series!) Two others (the 2006 Padres and the 2007 Phillies) managed to make the playoffs despite slow starts. Though it wouldn’t be an unprecedented comeback, the Red Sox and Rays have a lot of work to do to catch up to preseason expectations.
Dewan looks at teams’ records after the first 10 games of every season since 2002 to determine what percentage of slow-starting and fast-starting squads win 90 games and/or make the playoffs. Fear not, Mets fans: 21% of teams that started out 4-6 still managed to make the postseason, so 2011 is far from over. But you knew that.
What I would love to see — and as I asked at the Baseball Think Factory thread where I found this — is the same chart made up for the some arbitrary other ten games of the season, like the first ten games of August or something.
It seems reasonably intuitive that if you stopped a season at any given point and looked at every team’s last ten games, those that won seven or more would more likely (not certainly, just more likely) be good teams that would go on to win 90 games and make the playoffs, and the teams that won three or fewer would more likely be bad teams unlikely to reach the postseason.
So what I’m wondering is if the first ten games of a season are any more predictive than any other ten games of a season. I tend to doubt it, but I have been surprised before.
Tedquarters 