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

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Is there any way you can relate a small portion of even a couple of your posts to the issue at hand, which is baseball putting extra teams which are inferior in the playoffs then mostly failing in their efforts to have these extra inferior teams lose early while the strong teams advance?

You never answered this question:

Given that the AL used a balanced schedule from 1979 onward, does this mean you now consider 1979 California, 1984 Kansas City, 1987 Minnesota, 1988 Boston, 1989 Toronto, and 1990 Boston to be inferior teams not deserving of making the postseason? These teams ranged from 3rd best to 6th best record in the AL. Because of the balanced schedule, the divisions were effectively arbitrary and meaningless.

[Le Grande Orange]

For all the dislike some have for interleague play and expanded playoffs, the interesting thing is these idea were considered many times by MLB in its past but were, for various reasons, never adopted. Some examples:

Commissioner Frick had a proposal for interleague play in 1963, and even had a schedule prepared to push the idea. Clubs would have played 13 games against the other nine teams in its league and 4 games against the ten teams of the other league, for a total schedule of 157 games.

For 1973, the AL not only wanted the DH but also a slate of interleague games. There were various proposals which ranged from 6 to 18 games. The proposal with the best chance called for 6 interleague games against traditional or geographic rivals, either a home-and-home arrangement against the same team, or one series against two different opponents since some MLB teams didn't really have a 'natural' rival. The 6 interleague games would have come from reducing the interdivisional games in each league from 12 to 11. Another proposal, one liked by the Mets GM, called for a schedule in which teams played 22 games against each division rival (110 games total), 8 games against each of the teams in the other division (48 games total), and 4 interleague games against a 'natural' rival.

During the 1974 summer meetings, several proposals for expanding the playoffs from 4 to 8 teams were considered. The top two teams from each division would qualify, with the second place team playing the first in each division in a best-of-five series. An alternative was for the second-place team in one division to play the first-place team in the other division. Another idea was for the two division winners and two wild card teams to qualify in each league. The last idea was to split each league into three divisions with one wild card team (a concept no doubt inspired by the NFL's successful realignment in 1970 after absorbing the AFL). These same ideas would continue to be proposed in subsequent years right up through 1993. (MLB ultimately chose to realign into three divisions in each league, formally adopted by a 27-1 vote on Sept. 9, 1993. The lone dissenting vote was cast by Texas.)

These are just some of the 'what ifs' MLB might have done had things gone differently. There are several others.

[monkeyman576]

Only fans that are worried about seeing “deserving” teams winning are Yankees and Dodgers and Mets fans.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For all the dislike some have for interleague play and expanded playoffs, the interesting thing is these idea were considered many times by MLB in its past but were, for various reasons, never adopted. Some examples:
...

These are just some of the 'what ifs' MLB might have done had things gone differently. There are several others.

Paraphrasing myself from a previous post a few years back:

Most fans may not know that way back in 1905 - just before the World Series became the official & National Commission-sanctioned matchup between the winners of the AL & NL that we now know it to be - one of the ideas floated (by Boston Americans owner John Taylor) was for each team to play its full 154-game scheduled, followed by not just a championship series between the two league winners, but also by series' between the two second-place finishers, the two third-place teams, and all other corresponding finishers. That plan went nowhere as National Commission President Gerry Herrmann opposed it, opining that “This would be a most unprofitable undertaking, because no one would expect [a series] with the tail enders to draw.”

Herrmann's own plan was an idea over 90 years before its time. You guessed it: Interleague play. Herrmann advocated for the two league’s regular seasons to conclude earlier, perhaps after 116 games, after which an interleague postseason would follow with each NL team hosting each AL team for two games, and vice-versa. The plan did have some supporters in the media and elsewhere, but ultimately Pirates owner Barney Dreyfuss' sentiments pretty much summed up those of most owners: He didn't think it was practical, citing the time needed for such interleague series’ to take place, and the expense involved for second-division teams to both host games and travel. Dreyfuss did, however, express that he was open to the general idea of games between the leagues. Lo and behold, only 92 years later...

Also, in something that I find very interesting, in the early 1900's (and into the 40's in Chicago) there were often postseason series' that would take place after the regular season - approximately at the same time as the World Series - for the City Championship. Or sometimes it would be the "State Title," and in a few instances (one year it was Pirates vs Indians, another it was Yankees vs Red Sox) a geographically ambiguous matchup that was merely between teams that were somewhat nearby... Without looking I'd guess that St Louis had the 2nd most city clashes (after Chicago), although the other two-team cities - NY, Philly and Boston - held a few of these series'.

But these were - obviously - in a different era, when where you finished in the standings - even if it wasn't in first place - meant something to both players and fans. And therefore it was possible to drum up interest in a City Series.

(Sometimes when I do OOTP historical replays I include a City Series here or there - pretending that in my alternate world fans would care deeply about them - but I usually make house rules to only contest them when two teams have winning regular-season records...)

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Only fans that are worried about seeing “deserving” teams winning are Yankees and Dodgers and Mets fans.

Seems to me that fans of those teams would love to see their team playing undeserving team.
Though i don't think there is such a thing.
In most cases they should win.
Its only when they lose that i would imagine the complaining would start.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You never answered this question:

Given that the AL used a balanced schedule from 1979 onward, does this mean you now consider 1979 California, 1984 Kansas City, 1987 Minnesota, 1988 Boston, 1989 Toronto, and 1990 Boston to be inferior teams not deserving of making the postseason? These teams ranged from 3rd best to 6th best record in the AL. Because of the balanced schedule, the divisions were effectively arbitrary and meaningless.

You called it. And I expected you realized that.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Seems to me that fans of those teams would love to see their team playing undeserving team.
Though i don't think there is such a thing.
In most cases they should win.
Its only when they lose that i would imagine the complaining would start.

And the bold explains a lot of your misunderstanding. It has been posted multiple times in this thread that the small number of playoff games means a better team has only a slighter better chance of winning a series.

You posted earlier implying that Atlanta wasn't a good team because they couldn't translate regular season success into playoff wins. What does it take to convince you that a 162 game season is a better measure of a team's quality than a 5 game playoff series?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For all the dislike some have for interleague play and expanded playoffs, the interesting thing is these idea were considered many times by MLB in its past but were, for various reasons, never adopted. Some examples:

Commissioner Frick had a proposal for interleague play in 1963, and even had a schedule prepared to push the idea. Clubs would have played 13 games against the other nine teams in its league and 4 games against the ten teams of the other league, for a total schedule of 157 games.

For 1973, the AL not only wanted the DH but also a slate of interleague games. There were various proposals which ranged from 6 to 18 games. The proposal with the best chance called for 6 interleague games against traditional or geographic rivals, either a home-and-home arrangement against the same team, or one series against two different opponents since some MLB teams didn't really have a 'natural' rival. The 6 interleague games would have come from reducing the interdivisional games in each league from 12 to 11. Another proposal, one liked by the Mets GM, called for a schedule in which teams played 22 games against each division rival (110 games total), 8 games against each of the teams in the other division (48 games total), and 4 interleague games against a 'natural' rival.

During the 1974 summer meetings, several proposals for expanding the playoffs from 4 to 8 teams were considered. The top two teams from each division would qualify, with the second place team playing the first in each division in a best-of-five series. An alternative was for the second-place team in one division to play the first-place team in the other division. Another idea was for the two division winners and two wild card teams to qualify in each league. The last idea was to split each league into three divisions with one wild card team (a concept no doubt inspired by the NFL's successful realignment in 1970 after absorbing the AFL). These same ideas would continue to be proposed in subsequent years right up through 1993. (MLB ultimately chose to realign into three divisions in each league, formally adopted by a 27-1 vote on Sept. 9, 1993. The lone dissenting vote was cast by Texas.)

These are just some of the 'what ifs' MLB might have done had things gone differently. There are several others.

That's nice but like so many of your post it has nothing to do with the current issue that MLB insists on putting inferior teams in the playoffs that it doesn't want to win the playoffs, and that it's attempts to stack the playoff deck against the inferior teams has spectacularly failed.

Based on its actions we know MLB doesn't want these teams to win. This is completely lost on some people who insist that a team that wins the playoffs is really the best team no matter how poorly they did in the regular season while contradictorily requiring a certain level of success in the regular season to qualify for the playoffs.

You've said you don't care about the issue, which is fine, but posting about irrelevant stuff here isn't appropriate. I suggest you start a thread "Schedule History Trivia And Baseball's Mostly Unknown Reliance On The Scheduling Methods Of Gladiator Competitions And Witch Executions."

[Ty Cobb]

Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

That's nice but like so many of your post it has nothing to do with the current issue that MLB insists on putting inferior teams in the playoffs that it doesn't want to win the playoffs, and that it's attempts to stack the playoff deck against the inferior teams has spectacularly failed.

Based on its actions we know MLB doesn't want these teams to win. This is completely lost on some people who insist that a team that wins the playoffs is really the best team no matter how poorly they did in the regular season while contradictorily requiring a certain level of success in the regular season to qualify for the playoffs.

You've said you don't care about the issue, which is fine, but posting about irrelevant stuff here isn't appropriate. I suggest you start a thread "Schedule History Trivia And Baseball's Mostly Unknown Reliance On The Scheduling Methods Of Gladiator Competitions And Witch Executions."

Been meaning to ask this since the first post in the thread. What sport doesn't stack the deck against the inferior teams? The NFL has wild card rounds. The NBA now has the play in tourney deal that last year featured a team that went all the way to the finals. The Boston Bruins had a record setting season last year and got knocked out of the playoffs by the Florida Panthers. I agree that the post season is way better with less teams, but I just find the statement that baseball clearly doesn't want the inferior teams to be in the World Series to be kind of silly. As you've pointed out, stick two baseball teams in a short series and anything can happen.

One thing that bugs me is, adding the extra team was supposed to make things way more exciting down the stretch in August and September as teams battle for the final playoff spots. Problem is, too many teams actually made the stretch run boring this year. Get rid of the extra team and it would have been a blast watching Texas, Houston, Seattle and Toronto battle for the last spot. Instead it just became a battle for seeding.

Get rid of the extra team. The two wild card teams play a best of the 3 with the top seed getting a one win advantage to start. The games are played in a day night double header in the top seeds stadium. Bingo. No need for 4 days off for the top seeds and the Dodgers can lose as usual without a built in excuse.

[Pelican]

I thoroughly enjoyed the playoffs this year, even after my beloved Phillies choked. I think the Rangers showed they were "deserving" of a title. They beat the defending champions, for one thing. I don't see overrated teams like Atlanta and the Dodgers as being more "deserving". I do regret not seeing the surprising Orioles move on, and I wish the young Reds had made the playoffs.

The bottom line is, it's not who is better in April or June or July, but who plays best in September and October and November. Texas deserved to win, because they managed that minefield the best. I don't have a problem with that.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What does it take to convince you that a 162 game season is a better measure of a team's quality than a 5 game playoff series?

For me, that's easy. All Atlanta had to do was beat the Phillies, in a series where they were rested and could set their rotation, and had the extra home game. That would have convinced me they were the better team. But they lost, not in five games, but only four. Honestly, they were never in it from the start. They knew the rules. They had all the time in the world to prepare. They had last year as a reminder. For me, the best measure of a team's quality is how they play in the post-season. The Bravos failed that test - again.

And then, inexplicably, the Phillies failed that test. I know.

[Pelican]

Somewhere (I can't find it) in this thread there was a comment (maybe facetious) about how the luxury tax works like a "soft" salary cap. To the extent that was serious, I don't think it does. Teams (looking at you, Mets) that want to spend the money just blow by the limit and pay the tax. (The Mets of course also prove that merely throwing money at a problem does not always fix it.). It's only money. A hard cap is the only way to stop that.

But I'm more concerned with the bottom end of the scale. Some teams (KC, Pirates) won't or can't spend money on free agents, extensions, arbitration-eligible players, or on player development and scouting. Rather than a cap (ceiling), there ought to be a floor - a minimum number for salaries, and possibly one for investment in player development. Think of it as like an ante in poker. If you can't or won't ante up, you're out of the game.

In my sims with something like a spending floor, the bad teams tend to improve, and the whole league is more competitive. Of course, there are always unintended consequences. With more teams bidding, free agents get more money, salaries increase. The wealthy free-spending teams spend even more. It's tough to achieve some sort of parity, without a cap as well.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Pelican

But they lost, not in five games, but only four.

What is the significance of four or five games versus 162 games?

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Been meaning to ask this since the first post in the thread. What sport doesn't stack the deck against the inferior teams?

Soccer/football. Best team wins the league title every year.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Soccer/football. Best team wins the league title every year.

Sad to admit, I have zero knowledge when it comes to soccer.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Soccer/football. Best team wins the league title every year.

In the EPL, top of the top-of-the-table team at the end of the regular season is the champion. No playoffs. If there were playoffs, a 'not deserving team' may be crowned now and then.

[BaseballMan]

Rich teams win and fans complain.
Poor teams win and fans complain.
Wouldn't it be better to just enjoy the game?
I enjoyed seeing the Braves win in 95 and Yankees win in 96,
White Sox in 05, Cubs in 16 just as much as the Royals in 15 and the Rangers this week.
It took over 60 years for the Rangers to do it.
Who cares if they weren't the best team in the regular season.
They qualified and they did it.
The organization deserves the credit and their fans deserve that championship.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Somewhere (I can't find it) in this thread there was a comment (maybe facetious) about how the luxury tax works like a "soft" salary cap.

That was me. It's not my observation, but one that others following the sport have made numerous times over the years

Originally Posted by Pelican

To the extent that was serious, I don't think it does. Teams (looking at you, Mets) that want to spend the money just blow by the limit and pay the tax. (The Mets of course also prove that merely throwing money at a problem does not always fix it.). It's only money. A hard cap is the only way to stop that.

That one team chooses to pay the tax isn't the point, it's how that potential price affects team spending overall. The players were certainly concerned about the tax hindering the spending of clubs, hence why they wanted the thresholds raised. (The players will also never accept a hard salary cap,)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Soccer/football. Best team wins the league title every year.

And yet there is the FA Cup, UEFA Champions League, World Cup, etc. There are also playoffs to determine which teams get promoted in some leagues.