Teams under .500 in the playoffs

[mytreds]

This isn't a complaint thread. I thought it was cool that for the first time I've seen a team reach the postseason with a losing record. And it wasn't a Wildcard team, but a division winner!





The Columbus Jets finished a whopping 10 games under .500 to win their division. I was wondering what are some other users' experiences with under .500 teams making the playoffs?

[jcard]

Originally Posted by mytreds

This isn't a complaint thread. I thought it was cool that for the first time I've seen a team reach the postseason with a losing record. And it wasn't a Wildcard team, but a division winner!





The Columbus Jets finished a whopping 10 games under .500 to win their division. I was wondering what are some other users' experiences with under .500 teams making the playoffs?

Calls to mind the 1994 Texas Rangers. First year after strike cancelled remainder of 1993 season. First season with six divisions. 114 game schedule. Rangers win AL West by going 52–62, one game better than Oakland.

EDIT: 1994 (not 1993) was, of course, the year the season was suspended due to labor impasse. Other information correct.

[Sweed]

Yankees just won the World Series in my game in 2046 as a wild card with a 80-82 record.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Yankees just won the World Series in my game in 2046 as a wild card with a 80-82 record.

Nice. Columbus lost 3-1 to Hartford, so no such luck for them!

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by jcard

Calls to mind the 1994 Texas Rangers. First year after strike cancelled remainder of 1993 season. First season with six divisions. 114 game schedule. Rangers win AL West by going 52–62, one game better than Oakland.

Fascinating, I did not know that!

[cheo25]

The 1994 season ended in August and the World Series was canceled because of the strike. Rangers finished first by 1 game.

1994 American League Standings

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Fascinating, I did not know that!

Yeah, there were a lot of critics of the switch to 3-divisions + wildcard because of fears that a below-average team would make the playoffs and get hot. The 1973 Mets were the vanguard for this, coming within a single game of winning the World Series after scraping by in a weak division with an 82-79 record. It was just 4 years after the NLCS playoff system was introduced.

So when the leagues switched to even smaller divisions, having the Rangers leading their league while a full ten games under .500 vindicated those concerns.

But expanded playoffs just bring in too much money for the owners to ignore, and so 1994 sort of marked the end of old school baseball, imo.

[Pelican]

One of my favorite “what-if’s” in OOTP is to replay that 1994 Season in full with no strike. The 1994 Expos were a great team. The 1995 Season started late, and that also affected the postseason.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Pelican

One of my favorite “what-if’s” in OOTP is to replay that 1994 Season in full with no strike. The 1994 Expos were a great team. The 1995 Season started late, and that also affected the postseason.

So much has changed in MLB since 1994 that it almost feels unrecognizable at times. Expanded playoffs, steroid use, interleague play, overreliance on sabermetrics, widespread cheating with sticky, universal DH... every one of these changes for the supposed better has had downsides.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Yeah, there were a lot of critics of the switch to 3-divisions + wildcard because of fears that a below-average team would make the playoffs and get hot. The 1973 Mets were the vanguard for this, coming within a single game of winning the World Series after scraping by in a weak division with an 82-79 record. It was just 4 years after the NLCS playoff system was introduced.

So when the leagues switched to even smaller divisions, having the Rangers leading their league while a full ten games under .500 vindicated those concerns.

But expanded playoffs just bring in too much money for the owners to ignore, and so 1994 sort of marked the end of old school baseball, imo.

Just wait until they expand to 32. They'll have four team divisions.

When the Pirates made the post season in the McCutchen era and lost I never felt very bad about it. I figured they didn't belong there anyway. Will more fans come to that realization?

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Just wait until they expand to 32. They'll have four team divisions.

Don't rule out the possibility of a 162-game regular season followed by a 32-team elimination playoff

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Don't rule out the possibility of a 162-game regular season followed by a 32-team elimination playoff

One team divisions. Everyone is a winner!

What a joke baseball has become. I've never played OOTP later than 2008. And then I stopped expansion at 28 teams and had 4x7 team divisions with only division winners qualifying for the post season..

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by uruguru

So much has changed in MLB since 1994 that it almost feels unrecognizable at times. Expanded playoffs, steroid use, interleague play, overreliance on sabermetrics, widespread cheating with sticky, universal DH... every one of these changes for the supposed better has had downsides.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Yeah, there were a lot of critics of the switch to 3-divisions + wildcard because of fears that a below-average team would make the playoffs and get hot . . .

So when the leagues switched to even smaller divisions, having the Rangers leading their league while a full ten games under .500 vindicated those concerns.

This was exacerbated by using the same balanced schedule format as was used in 1993. You can rearrange the standings any way you want and the results would be equally legitimate.

Do note the three division structure was first being proposed way back in the latter 1970s, inspired by the success the amalgamated NFL-AFL had with it.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by mytreds

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Were they good intentions?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Were they good intentions?

Depends on what you define as good in a professional sports context.

[JudgeGio]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Don't rule out the possibility of a 162-game regular season followed by a 32-team elimination playoff

Yes, I fear one day the 162 game schedule will only count for playoff seedings for every team.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Were they good intentions?

"Greed is good"

So I guess so.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by uruguru

"Greed is good"

So I guess so.

Professional sports is and has always been about making money. The players want to make money and the owners want to make money. People romanticize pro sports too much.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Professional sports is and has always been about making money. The players want to make money and the owners want to make money. People romanticize pro sports too much.

All of the changes I mentioned have occurred since 1994.