I just noticed a weird anomaly in the MLB AL East standings. The Yankees, who are currently playing the 2nd game of a double-header against Detroit, are currently in 2nd place, a half game behind Boston. But they actually have a higher winning percentage. They’ve played 5 fewer games, which is the reason. But I can’t remember if I’ve ever seen that before.
Also interesting is that the main page of the standings on espn.com shows the Red Sox in 1st Place. But the team pages for both teams show the Yankees in 1st.
Right, New York is actually in first place (temporarily at least) because we go by winning percentage rather than by games behind.
It’s unusual but not unheard of, and it’s especially unusual at this point in the year. When it does happen it tends to be very early in the season…when a day off or a rainout ir two can make a big difference. One team might be 2-0 and another 4-1, with that same half game difference in favor of the team that’s actually in second place.
But you’re right that it is pretty rare. And also kind of cool. Though it will probably hurt the Yankees when the bill for all those rainouts comes due.
Yes.
All I’m trying to find out is what’s the team in first place.
Who’s on first.
I don’t know.
Third base!
This is due in no small part to the fact that rain caused the Yankees’ game against my Nationals on May 15 to be suspended with the game tied 3-3 after 5 1/2 innings. It, and the regularly-scheduled game that was postponed on May 16, will both be played on June 18 as part of a one-and-a-half-header.
I am actually a little unclear as to where the rule can be found that says winning percentage is what counts. The Basic Agreement asserts that winning percentage determines the Wild Cards, but it just refers to the teams that wuin divisions as the “division champions,” and does not clearly state what determines who those teams are. It’s not in the Official Rules, and there is no precedent for this because there has never ben a circumstance in MLB when a team was ahead in one regard and behind in the other.
It is THEORETICALLY possible that the season could end this way, but extremely unlikely; it would generally require one of two very rare circumstances, those being
- Two teams in the same division win 108 games or more and one misses 3 games:
BOSTON 111-51 .685
NEW YORK 108-49 .688
In this case, Boston is half a game ahead but New York has a better winning percentage.
- Two teams with are in competition for a division title and one missed an even number of games but is the same number of wins above or below .500:
BOSTON 98-64
NEW YORK 97-63
Here, the teams are tied in games ahead/behind, with NY winning on percentage.
I can’t remember ever seeing as many rainouts as there’ve been over the first part of this season; it’s really played havoc with the schedules, and created these substantial disparities in the numbers of games played.
That’s odd, you’re right, but it would be nonsensical for the WC’s to go by percentage while the DC’s go by GB. Otherwise the same team could be both. Rankings *have *to be by percentage, not GB - that’s the only thing that makes any sense.
I agree, and fortunately it’ll probably never be an issue.
I am still hoping for a three way tie for a playoff spot.
Third PLACE!
Probably because at no point until the end of the season does it matter who is in first place, and that point they’ll have played the same number of games.
Well, unless it does matter because they haven’t, and it happens.
If one team finishes 91-71 and one 90-70, are they tied? Is the 90-70 team ahead? Do you force them to play one makeup game?
Teams missing two games in a season isn’t impossible. It happens.
I thought the rule was that if a missed game effects the standings it had to be played. You force them to play a makeup game.
I admit, that’s not as clear as I would have hoped, but I think that basically says the league president will determine if the game needs to be played.
I don’t know what the specific rule is, haven;t tried looking it up, but this is certainly the way it’s done: when a pennant/playoff berth is on the line, everybody must complete the schedule.
The case that stands out in my mind is the NL East race in 1973. The Mets were leading the division with a record of 80-78 going into the final three days of the season; they were in Chicago to play four games against the Cubs. The Cardinals and Pirates were still barely alive–the Cardinals were 78-81 with three games to go against the Phillies, not sure just how far out Pittsburgh was.
On Friday the Mets were rained out, the Cardinals won: NY 80-78, STL 79-81.
On Saturday the Merts were rained out again (I know this because six of my best friends and I were in the park waiting to see if the skies would clear, and they didn’t, so we went to the bowling alley instead); the Cardinals won again: NY still 80-78, STL now 80-81.
On Sunday the Cardinals won to close out their season. The Mets split a DH against the Cubs. End of scheduled season. Standings: NY now 81-79, STL 81-81, and by the way PIT 80-81.
So were the Mets declared the winners? No, because they and the Pirates both had games to make up that had a bearing on who won the division. In theory, the Mets could’ve gotten swept in two more games against the Cubs while the Pirates beat San Diego (?) in the game they’d missed earlier in the season, and all three could’ve ended up 81-81. So they made the Mets make up the games against the Cubs. (Sort of, it was wet again, and the Mets won the first game, giving them an 82-79 record and clinching the division for them, so they canceled Game 2.)
Anyway, this is standard procedure. The only times I know of when it hasn’t been followed were 1972 and 1981, strike years when the “official schedule” called for different numbers of games for some of the teams. It might have been different back in the early days of the sport, too, but I don’t know for sure. Certainly it’s what they would do now.
Makes sense, but it would be crazy if a team 1.5 games behind at the end of the season happened to have postponed games in 3 different cities and had to make them all up to make a 1-game playoff. Would players on the opposing team of the 3rd game of this scenario be required to postpone their vacations to be available for a game several days after their season ended?
I did look it up just now. The rule in queswtion seems to be 7.02b(5):
“Any postponed game, suspended game…or tie game that has not been rescheduled or completed prior to the last scheduled game between the two teams during the championship season [that is, the regular season] must be played…to a completed regulation game, if the League President determines that not playing such game might affect eligibility for the post-season…”
I’m not quite sure why this is left at the president’s discretion rather than at the discretion of mathematical possibility, but absent really bizarre circumstances there’s no way a league president would declare the season over and allow a 90-70 team to advance over a 91-71 team without making up those two games. (Again, note that this is only applicable where a playoff spot is on the line…they wouldn’t make up those two games if only non-playoff order was involved.)