Doubts on Droughts

Tonight, the Philadelphia Phillies will appear in the World Series for the first time since 1993 and will begin their attempt to win their second World Series, with the first one coming in 1980. The 15-season time period between World Series appearances and the 28-season mark since the Phillies’ last World Series championship have been characterized as droughts … as has the 25 seasons since any Philadelphia team in the four major sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA) has won a title, dating back to the 76ers’ win of the 1983 NBA Finals. Yet, these kinds of characterizations remind me of a concern I have about the overuse of the word “drought” in professional sports and the deeper significance of this overuse.

I think the first step in addressing this concern is to establish some sense of what a “drought” is. Our easy-access Wikipedia definition tells us that a drought is “an extended period of months or years when a region notes a deficiency in its water supply.” A more authoritative source—the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC)—explains that “drought” is a difficult term to define; however, in its explanation of what constitutes a drought, the NDMC uses verbiage that is very similar to the Wikipedia definition, including a sort of summary statement that a drought “originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more.” The NDMC goes into more explanation of a drought, but, for the time being, I’m willing to take that statement as a working definition. At the very least, I think that’s enough to illuminate my concern.

Obviously, within that statement, we need to recognize the varied elements that contribute to a “season,” since the significance of a season without a championship in baseball is not the same as the significance of a season without rain (except for New York Yankee fans, I suppose). The closer comparison to a season without rain would probably be a season without a complete game by a pitcher or a season without a 20-home run hitter or, if you have weather like Seattle, a season without a home run or something like that. So, we do need to qualify the terms of “season” to begin with.

To qualify “season,” I think the world “deficiency” is key here. A deficiency is a significant lack. As the NDMC website states in continuing to explain a drought, “drought should be considered relative to some long-term average condition of balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration (i.e., evaporation + transpiration) in a particular area, a condition often perceived as ‘normal’.” So, the amount of deficiency to constitute a drought is below “normal” (i.e., deficient in the typical amount) and it is deficient against a “long-term average.” In other words, to constitute a drought, the thing being measured (whether rain or championships or something else) needs to be sufficiently deficient for a time period that is longer than normal.

Of course, this then begs the question “What is normal?” and I think this is also key for defining “drought.” It would seem to me that if a particular goal of a sports league is parity, then that might be a kind of measure of “normal” conditions. By that token, since there are presently 30 teams in Major League Baseball, if absolute parity (in terms of playoff appearances and titles, at least) was achieved, every team would win the World Series once every 30 seasons. Meanwhile, since there are currently 16 teams in the National League and 14 teams in the American League, in absolute parity, every National League team would make it to the World Series once every 16 seasons and every American League team would make it to the World Series once every 14 season. Cut those in half (to 8 and 7 seasons, respectively) for making it to the League Championship Series. Cut it in half again (so, rounding up for the A.L., every 4 seasons) for making the playoffs. The thing to remember, though, is that this is a bare minimum for thinking about conditions equaling a drought. Since a drought is characterized not only as below normal, but as below normal for an extended period of time, there’s a case to be made that while not winning a World Series in 30 years is below normal (again, defining normal as absolute parity), it’s not below normal for an extensive enough period of time to constitute a “drought.” The intricacies of that, though, is a subject for a more extended treatise than I currently have the time to consider (though, perhaps in future posts or on the message board …). For now, I’m willing to go with one season over the marks for parity that I have just described as constituting a “drought,” since I think this is enough, for now, to convey my point.

Defining “drought” in this way, the Milwaukee Brewers making it to the playoffs for the first time in 26 seasons certainly fits. So, too, of course, does the Cubs’ 100 seasons since a World Series win. The Brewers, I think, had a legitimate claim to have ended a drought by making the playoffs. The Cubs—especially because until 1961 there were only 16 teams, which meant that drought conditions could be met by an even smaller number of seasons between championships—certainly have plenty of room to claim a drought. Likewise, the Red Sox until 2004 had a similar claim. Meanwhile, Yankee fans can complain all they want about droughts, but 1 season without making the playoffs, 4 seasons since making the A.L.C.S., 5 seasons since making the World Series, and 8 seasons since winning the World Series are not droughts at all. Only the A.L.C.S. one makes it as close as half-way. The question, then, is what to make of the other teams in Major League Baseball.

By the above definition, of the 30 major league baseball teams, the following teams would be in a World Series appearance drought (the last year the team appeared in the World Series in parentheses): Baltimore (1983), the Chicago Cubs (1945), Cincinnati (1990), Kansas City (1985), the Los Angeles Dodgers (1988), Milwaukee (1982), Minnesota (1991), Oakland (1990), Pittsburgh (1979), Seattle (never in 32 seasons), Texas (never in 48 seasons, including their years as the Washington Senators), Toronto (1993), and Washington (never in 40 seasons, including their years as the Montreal Expos).

Meanwhile, the following teams would be in a World Series championship drought (the last year the team won the World Series in parentheses): the Chicago Cubs (1908), Cleveland (1948), Houston (never in 47 seasons), Milwaukee (never in 40 seasons, including their years as the Seattle Pilots), San Diego (never in 40 seasons), San Francisco (1954—as the New York Giants), Seattle (never in 32 seasons), Texas (never in 48 seasons, including their years as the Washington Senators), and Washington (never in 40 seasons, including their years as the Montreal Expos). I don’t count Colorado or Tampa Bay in this list because, while neither has ever won the World Series, neither has played the full 30 seasons needed for a drought.

So, where does this leave the Phillies? Well … until making it to the 2008 World Series, the Phillies had gone 14 seasons since their last appearance. That’s two below the 16 needed for this definition of drought. However, there are other mitigating circumstances here. When the Phillies began that period, after the 1993 World Series, there were only 14 National League teams. This would mean that the Phillies made it right on schedule, if we adjust to allow for the number of teams at that time (which is something we may or may not want to do … again, the subject of further discussion). On the other hand, how do we treat the 1994 season? With the stoppage of play, no one made the World Series. So, does that season not count toward anyone’s total or does it count for everyone? Again, I think that’s a further topic for discussion, but our answer does potentially drop the Phillies’ season number to 13, which would mean by either the 1993 definition or the 2008 definition of drought, they weren’t experiencing one.

In terms of the World Series, there is a similar case (and one that the Phillies share with the Pittsburgh Pirates). Through 2008, the Phillies have now played 28 seasons since they last won the World Series. By 2008 standards, that leaves them 2 seasons short of a drought. However, since there were only 26 teams in 1980, by that year’s standards, the Phillies are 2 seasons into a drought (or 1 season, if we discount 1994). In a similar case, since the Pirates are not going to win the World Series in 2008, they could be said to have just reached the drought plateau of 30 seasons. Conversely, they could be said to be 1 season short (if 1994 doesn’t count) or they could be said to be 4 seasons into a drought (or 3 seasons into it, if 1994 doesn’t count) by 1979 standards.

So, have the Phillies ended a World Series appearance drought by making it to the World Series and will they end a World Series title drought by winning a World Series? I think the answer is barely … and only if we cut them every break we can in defining a drought (at least when drought is based on parity). As for the city of Philadelphia, I think there is a case to be made for that being a drought, but the math of showing it would probably double the size of this blog entry and I’m not ready to go into that right now …

In the end, then, why does this matter besides the silly semantic musings of some guy who really has plenty of other things he should be doing? I think that this is a good example of how overusage of dramatic terms permeates everyday life. A drought is a serious deficiency when compared against typical (or “normal”) conditions. It is not a slight deficiency or even just a lack. If my climate calls for me not to have rain very often, then a few weeks without rain can be nowhere near a drought. The NDMC explains as much and I should know … I lived in the Phoenix-area for seven years and can remember times that we went months without rain, but it was not a drought because of the climate. Given the MLB climate, I would argue that 30 seasons constitutes a bare minimum by which one could define a drought. For other sports leagues, it’s based on the number of teams. To suggest otherwise potentially contributes to the trend of sensationalizing and overdramatizing what are not sensational and dramatic things … in the same way that people (especially women) who are not skinny are told that they are “overweight,” that children who do not restrain themselves as much as parents and teachers like are told that they are “hyperactive” and may need medication, and so on. “Overweight” and “hyperactive,” like “drought,” are conditions that do bear watching, but use of all of these terms when they do not apply can be dangerous. When talking about sports teams not winning championships, the danger is probably not anywhere near as great as the misapplication of terms like “overweight” and “hyperactive”—or, for that matter, the misapplication of the word “drought” in regard to atmospheric climate. However, the misapplication of “drought” in sports can help foster the kinds of attitudes the buttress use of terms in arenas that have more severe consequences, thus contributing to the maintenance of a deep communicative trend that bears significance in many of its manifestations.