It's true. The team with the better regular season record in the Cecil Cup has lost every Cup since the inaugural 2002 Houston squad. Here's the records going into each of the Cecil Cups:
2002: Houston (92-70) vs. Stockholm (91-71). Houston wins in 6.
2003: Houston (95-67) vs. California (98-64). Houston wins in 5.
2004: Houston (107-55) vs. Stockholm (103-59). Stockholm wins in 6.
2005: Seattle (112-50) vs. Stockholm (108-54). Stockholm wins in 4.
2006: Seattle (95-67) vs. Stockholm (same at 95-67). Stockholm wins in 7.
2007: Saskatoon (101-61) vs. Florida (97-65). Florida wins in 5.
2008: Seattle (106-56) vs. River Cities (103-59). River Cities wins in 5.
So, the moral of the story is apparently "Win enough to win your division, but less than the other guy."
I'll also note that 2008 may have been the first year where the team with the better Pythagorean record won the Cup. I don't have the Pythagorean records for 2002, so Houston may have had a better record than Stockholm. 2003 California and 2004 Houston had better Pythagorean records than their opponents but lost in the Cup. The Cup opponents had the same Pythagorean records in 2005, 2006, and 2007. In 2008, River Cities was one game better (110-52 vs. 109-53) in Pythagorean record than Seattle. So, it may not pay to have the best Pythagorean record either.
Bonus random facts: Seattle had the best Pythagorean record in 2007, but lost the Adams League championship to Saskatton by one game. River Cities (then Virginia) tied Houston for the best Pythagorean record in 2004 (103-59), but won nine games less than projected and finished nine games behind Florida, who won two more games than their 101-61 Pythagorean record.
Somehow, this makes me feel a little better. Not as good as if I ever actually won a Cecil Cup, but a little bit better.
Nice lemonade you've made here, Mack.
ReplyDelete