Will We Ever See Deserving Teams In The World Series Again?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

In 2022, China emitted 36.8 times more total greenhouse gases (15,684.63 Mtons) than did all of international aviation (425.96 Mtons) according to the EU's EDGAR database.


The tie-breaking game was scrapped because of the many new tie scenarios possible with the third wild card in each league. Under the two wild card qualifier system, the tie scenarios were manageable, although the biggest of them would have required two days to resolve, and MLB only allotted one day.

The tricky part is when you have clubs simultaneously tied for a division title and one or more wild card spots.

MLB passed on the chance for more games, more fans in the stands, more TV, and a chance for the last game of the World Series to be on TV right after the Thanksgiving Day Parade just because it was tricky?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

This idea that making the playoffs (even in the NBA) is not something to celebrate any longer has never computed for me. My only perspective is as a fan and I get excited when any of my rooting interests make the playoffs. If it's a 1 of 4 or 1 of 16 slot, who cares? In is "in" and it beats "out".

Well, there are different levels of celebration. If I hit the lottery for 10 million dollars, it's time to throw an all nighter. If I hit the pick 3 for 150 bucks, that's nice too. Just not inviting the entire family over to party.

Similar to when baseball allowed only 4. Being one of those 4 was a big deal. Being 1 of 16 in the playoffs, and getting in with a losing record, not so much.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Well, there are different levels of celebration. If I hit the lottery for 10 million dollars, it's time to throw an all nighter. If I hit the pick 3 for 150 bucks, that's nice too. Just not inviting the entire family over to party.

Similar to when baseball allowed only 4. Being one of those 4 was a big deal. Being 1 of 16 in the playoffs, and getting in with a losing record, not so much.

Like Like Like

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

MLB passed on the chance for more games, more fans in the stands, more TV, and a chance for the last game of the World Series to be on TV right after the Thanksgiving Day Parade just because it was tricky?

With six qualifiers, and able to qualify in two different ways, yes, the tie-breaking can get complicated quickly. MLB only allotted one day to tie-breaking, so if a tie required two days to resolve, the remainder of the post-season schedule would get pushed back. MLB wants the playoff series to start on specific days and dates.

Consider the following scenario from the two wild card qualifier years:

*NYA 90-72   CLE 97-65   SEA 100-62
*BOS 90-72  *CHA 90-72   OAK  92-70

NYA and BOS are tied for the division title while simultaneously tied with CHA for the second wild card spot (OAK is the first wild card). How do you propose resolving this particular tie?

Consider another scenario from the two wild card qualifier years:

*NYA 90-72   CLE 97-65   SEA 100-62
*BOS 90-72  *CHA 90-72  *OAK  90-72

NYA and BOS are tied for the division title while simultaneously tied with both CHA and OAK for the two wild card berths. How do you propose resolving this particular tie?


For those wondering, here is how MLB would have done it:

First scenario
Day 1: NYA vs. BOS (winner gets division title, loser plays on Day 2)
Day 2: CHA vs. loser of NYA/BOS (winner is second wild card, loser is eliminated)

Second scenario
Day 1: NYA vs. BOS (winner gets division title, loser plays on Day 2)
Day 1: CHA vs. OAK (winner is first wild card; loser plays on Day 2)
Day 2: loser of NYA/BOS vs. loser of CHA/OAK (winner is second wild card, loser is eliminated)

[Brad K]

If the D Backs continue with the sacrifice bunts I'm going to have to start pulling for the Rangers. I suppose the announcers are just gushing with praise of the tactic, how the bunts catch the Rangers off guard and how the D Backs have won some fantastic percentage of their games where they've successfully sacrificed. (I don't know what the announcers are saying. Like last year I could tolerate the constant gibberish for only one game. Like the game one comment about the D Backs looking to go 7-2 on the road for the playoffs. Not a single D Back was thinking that. They were looking to go 1-0 in the World Series. These guys don't need to talk ALL the time.)

Anyway, CLEARLY successful sacrifices are the path to 9-1 wins like in game two, I'm sure everyone can agree. We're back to 1965 thinking where a hit batter, a steal, a sacrifice bunt, and a score on a deep ground out was a Dodgers rally.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

On one hand you argue winning the most regular season games doesn't matter yet on the other want to use games won as a criteria for making the post season, eliminating the teams with fewer wins. So at what point do wins matter? Apparently only when I suggest that if they don't matter let everyone into the post season.

You have a set amount of teams allowed in the postseason for each league.
You win enough to be one of those teams.
You win more and you get the benefit of home field advantage.
Nowhere did I say wins don't count.
Seems like you would like the two teams with the best record in the series.
I wouldn't be against that but we both know that isn't gonna happen.
However just because the teams with the best records don't make it doesn't mean the mlb should allow teams in last place into the postseason.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Nowhere did I say wins don't count.

Dunno.... easy to see what you wrote in 53 as meaning that.

"Doesn't matter if a team was the best in the regular season.
All that matters is that a team qualifies.

"The 2001 Mariners were a great regular season team with 116 wins but were they championship material. The Yankees and the Mariners following years pretty much answered that question."

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Seems like you would like the two teams with the best record in the series.

No. What I want is for there to be a reason for a team to be in the post season, a real question about which team is better. We have an everyone plays everyone schedule that is only slightly imbalanced. It's not enough of an imbalance you can say schedule strength caused a difference of a few wins. So there's no reason to qualify lesser win teams.

But when there were two divisions per league and a team played 90 of their games in the division and the teams had equal competition outside the division now there's a question of whether schedule strength could cause a difference of a few wins. And that gives a reason for a playoff between the division winners.

The current system resulted this year in teams being in the post season not with a small difference that might be due to schedule strength but a 20 win difference between the best and worst qualifier.

Oh well, but if they win all their playoff series they're a championship team but if the 104 win team doesn't win 3 of 5 they're not a championship team. How often during a season does a team, even a good team. not win three in a five game stretch? A lot of the time.

Oh, that 84 win team, well, they peaked late, they had injuries early, they don't play well in chilly April and May weather, on and on and on. Sorry. Its a full season, they're expected to perform over a full season, other teams did, and they didn't. Time for them to go home.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Oh, that 84 win team, well, they peaked late, they had injuries early, they don't play well in chilly April and May weather, on and on and on. Sorry. Its a full season, they're expected to perform over a full season, other teams did, and they didn't. Time for them to go home.

1906 = 93-58 Chicago White Sox defeated 116-36 Chicago Cubs 4 games to 2
1954 = 97-57 New York Giants defeated 111-43 Cleveland Indians 4 games to 0

Only the first-place team in each league qualified for the World Series.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

1954 = 97-57 New York Giants defeated 111-43 Cleveland Indians 4 games to 0

Eh! The AL was clearly the inferior league in that time period, filled with bums. They never won the World Series!

The AL:

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

1906 = 93-58 Chicago White Sox defeated 116-36 Chicago Cubs 4 games to 2
1954 = 97-57 New York Giants defeated 111-43 Cleveland Indians 4 games to 0

Only the first-place team in each league qualified for the World Series.

What's the point? That if they'd let in the second and third place teams the Cubs and Indians would have lost?

[slic1149]

If a team makes the playoffs, as structured by the league, after playing 162 games, they have both by talent, and based on the rules, earned their spot participating in the playoffs. The more teams that make the playoffs, the more excitement for the most fans. Both the Diamondbacks and the Rangers spent an extensive time as one of the best teams in their respective leagues. To say they somehow don't belong is preposterous. The league parity and chance for more teams to play for the championship doesn't cheapen the playoffs, it instead enhances the experience for the most possible fans.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What's the point? That if they'd let in the second and third place teams the Cubs and Indians would have lost?

It shows the best team by wins is not a foolproof measure of the best team.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by slic1149

The league parity and chance for more teams to play for the championship doesn't cheapen the playoffs, it instead enhances the experience for the most possible fans.

The flip side to that is it makes the long regular season less important since it is easier to qualify — 12 out of 30 is more opportunity than is 8 out of 30 or 4 out of 28.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Dunno.... easy to see what you wrote in 53 as meaning that.

"Doesn't matter if a team was the best in the regular season.
All that matters is that a team qualifies.

"The 2001 Mariners were a great regular season team with 116 wins but were they championship material. The Yankees and the Mariners following years pretty much answered that question."

How do you get wins don't matter out of that?
I clearly said it doesn't matter if your the best team in the regular season.
You STILL have to win enough games to make the postseason.
Nowhere did i say wins don't matter.
I did say that the bottom line is that team needs to qualify.
Explain to me how you qualify without winning enough games to qualify?

The Braves won 100 games, had home field advantage and got beat.
That is their fault. Same with the Orioles, Astros and every team except Rangers and Diamondbacks.

Where do you cut it off?
Is it 100 wins or 90 wins?
Should the 88 Dodgers give back their trophy because they had less wins but clearly outplayed the A's.

How bout they just take the two teams with the best record for the World Series. Would you be upset if the team with less wins won? Why not?
People complain about the Yankees winning so much with 16 teams and now your complaining because they made it more competitive and challenging.
Sorry i don't get it.

If they allowed over half of the teams to qualify i could see your point.
but it think you are putting more emphasis on the regular season.
than the postseason.
Again the regular season is just a contest to see which teams get into the postseason. Like it or not thats it.

The mlb doesnt say the team with the most regular season wins is the champion.

You dont get the championship trophy for 100 wins unless you win the Series.
A team has 162 games to get to the postseason.
A team makes it to the postseason and then its up to them win it all.
Nothing is given to to them.
Seems fair to me.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It shows the best team by wins is not a foolproof measure of the best team.

No. It shows a short series is a poor measure of the best team.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by slic1149

If a team makes the playoffs, as structured by the league, after playing 162 games, they have both by talent, and based on the rules, earned their spot participating in the playoffs. The more teams that make the playoffs, the more excitement for the most fans. Both the Diamondbacks and the Rangers spent an extensive time as one of the best teams in their respective leagues. To say they somehow don't belong is preposterous. The league parity and chance for more teams to play for the championship doesn't cheapen the playoffs, it instead enhances the experience for the most possible fans.

A 104 win team and an 84 win team making the playoffs isn't an example of parity. Its an example of indefensible standards.

If you want to enhance the experience for most possible fans then let every team in.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Where do you cut it off?
Is it 100 wins or 90 wins?

That's not my problem. I'm not in favor of letting clearly inferior teams compete in the post season.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Should the 88 Dodgers give back their trophy because they had less wins but clearly outplayed the A's.

Pedant: that's fewer wins. Countable items are "fewer".

The 1985 Mets (beloved though they may be) had less success that year than the Cardinals, because they ended with fewer wins. [/pedant]

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

No. It shows a short series is a poor measure of the best team.

The 1954 Cleveland Indians losing streaks:

4 games in a row: 1 time
3 games in a row: 3 times
2 games in a row: 4 times
1 game in a row: 22 times

The Indians had just one instance of losing four games in a row during the entire regular season. Yet it was swept by the Giants in four straight games in the World Series.

The 1906 Chicago Cubs losing streaks:

3 games in a row: 1 time
2 games in a row: 4 times
1 game in a row: 25 times

The Cubs' longest losing streak in the regular season was just three games, which occurred only once. After winning game #4 to tie the World Series at 2-2, the Cubs lost two in a row to lose the series 4 games to 2.