Teams under .500 in the playoffs

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

With all due respect, 1947 had a faaaaaar bigger effect on the league than anything that happened in 1973. It's not even close and as much as one can say "but rule changes", the rule I'm talking about was, while unwritten, just as much a part of the game as the DH became in 1973.



The 1973(?) Mets made the playoffs with 83 win and the 1987 Twins won the Series with 85...

Man, someone already brought up the bad memory of the Tigers losing the the Cardinals.....did you have to go an mention the 87 Twins? I still have Juan Berenguer nightmares.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

With all due respect, 1947 had a faaaaaar bigger effect on the league than anything that happened in 1973. It's not even close and as much as one can say "but rule changes", the rule I'm talking about was, while unwritten, just as much a part of the game as the DH became in 1973.

But did it really? 1947 was a reflection societal changes that were far far greater than the sport of baseball. 1947 was an inevitability. Why not 1995 instead? After all, we are not far from a year where there are more Asian players in MLB than black players.

I mean, there are LOTS of changes that changed the dynamics of the game but did not change the actual game itself, which is what I am talking about. 9 positions, 9 players, 9 innings, 3 bases, 3 outs, 3 strikes, 4 balls.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Now objectively demonstrate using facts and evidence those other matters were trivial whereas your complaints are the only substantive ones. I'll wait.

The problem you're having is that you mistakenly think your preferences are objective facts to which everyone must agree. They're not and never will be. You can personally prefer whatever baseball period you like but stop acting as if your preferred period has been empirically demonstrated to be superior to all others. It's fallacious argumentation.

I'm not having any problems. When baseball decided to lower the mound it didn't simultaneously do something else not nearly so evident to help the pitchers.

But when MLB decided to let proven inferior teams into the playoffs, it did things to try to prevent them from winning. The current system gives the best teams byes thus making the weaker teams play more games, it makes the weakest teams play more on the road, and thereby hopes to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the money from the big playoffs but it doesn't want the weak teams to win.

So by viewing baseball's own actions, we can see the dishonest gaming going on.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

But did it really? 1947 was a reflection societal changes that were far far greater than the sport of baseball. 1947 was an inevitability. Why not 1995 instead? After all, we are not far from a year where there are more Asian players in MLB than black players.

There weren’t any Asian players in the league in 1946 either and without black integration we never would have had that, nor would we have had the vast majority of Latino players (where light-skinned players such as Dolph Luque could technically play but there were still a lot of folks who were banned and forced to play in the NeL).

If 1947 was an inevitability, why did it take until 1947? Why did it take the Red Sox and Cardinals until almost 1960? Why did a similarly segregated sport - golf - still play major tournaments at whites-only courses into the 1990s? I think it’s silly and reductive to just say “oh well you know the owners and fanbases were like essentially nice people, they totally would have just integrated on their own”. No, it had to actually start somewhere and some time and frankly that season is a great dividing line.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I think it’s silly and reductive to just say “oh well you know the owners and fanbases were like essentially nice people, they totally would have just integrated on their own”.

Who are you responding to with a comment like that? Clearly not me.

Are you having some sort of fever dream on the forums?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Who are you responding to with a comment like that? Clearly not me.

He quoted your post so he is responding to you.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

He quoted your post so he is responding to you.

I know he technically quoted my post, but he was responding to words that I have no idea who they came from..

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by uruguru

But did it really? 1947 was a reflection societal changes that were far far greater than the sport of baseball. 1947 was an inevitability. Why not 1995 instead? After all, we are not far from a year where there are more Asian players in MLB than black players.

I mean, there are LOTS of changes that changed the dynamics of the game but did not change the actual game itself, which is what I am talking about. 9 positions, 9 players, 9 innings, 3 bases, 3 outs, 3 strikes, 4 balls.

And how about when Dominicans were allowed to play? No one seems to remember Ozzie Virgil Sr, or the Alou brothers (all signed by Horace Stoneham, NY/SF Giants owner).

[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. 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.

Let's see what the data shows. The number of wins recorded by a division winner and each wild card position, full seasons only.

                            Count  Min  Max    Avg  Med  StDev
--------------------------------------------------------------
 8-team leagues, 154 games   111    88  116   97.6   97   5.5
10-team leagues, 162 games    15    92  109   98.4   99   4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------
 2-division lgs, 7-team div   34    84  104   95.8   96   5.5
 2-division lgs, 6-team div   58    82  109   95.7   95   5.4 
--------------------------------------------------------------
 3-division lgs, 6-team div   15    83  105   94.5   96   5.9
 3-division lgs, 5-team div  134    82  114   95.6   95   5.6
 3-division lgs, 4-team div   19    88  116   94.8   94   6.2
--------------------------------------------------------------
 1st wild card                56    87  106   93.3   93   3.9
 2nd wild card                24    84   97   89.7   89   3.4
 3rd wild card                 6    84   89   86.8   87   1.8

Whether a league had two divisions or three, and regardless of the size of the division, the average and median numbers needed for first place were nearly the same. The first wild card was slightly behind division winners; the drop-off came with the second wild card which definitely trails the first, with the third wild card somewhat behind the second. Note that the third wild card has a small sample size.

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....

MLB has had a three divisions per league structure for longer (31 seasons) than it had two divisions per league (25 seasons).

Expanded playoffs and three divisions per league were being proposed in the 1970s. The AL was definitely interested in the idea but it couldn't get the NL to go along. It was inspired by the NFL's success with the format after amalgamating the AFL.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

I know he technically quoted my post, but he was responding to words that I have no idea who they came from..

You’re the one calling integration an “inevitability”, not me. Maybe instead of crying that other posters are big meanieheads who have fever dreams, you should respond to criticisms and/or not say indefensible things.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

You’re the one calling integration an “inevitability”, not me. Maybe instead of crying that other posters are big meanieheads who have fever dreams, you should respond to criticisms and/or not say indefensible things.

You don't think societal integration in the US was an inevitability? Really?

the NFL, MLB and NBA all integrated within a few years of each other. Coincidence, I guess.

I didn't call you a meaniehead (see? you did it again), I called you out for a typical diversion tactic used by people who can't argue the point so they instead erect strawmen.

I was hoping that maybe you just weren't aware how often you do it.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

There weren’t any Asian players in the league in 1946 either and without black integration we never would have had that, nor would we have had the vast majority of Latino players (where light-skinned players such as Dolph Luque could technically play but there were still a lot of folks who were banned and forced to play in the NeL).

If 1947 was an inevitability, why did it take until 1947? Why did it take the Red Sox and Cardinals until almost 1960? Why did a similarly segregated sport - golf - still play major tournaments at whites-only courses into the 1990s? I think it’s silly and reductive to just say “oh well you know the owners and fanbases were like essentially nice people, they totally would have just integrated on their own”. No, it had to actually start somewhere and some time and frankly that season is a great dividing line.

Why did it take until 1947? There wasn't a player good enough, who was willing enough to put up with the racism and not react like any reasonable person would. Not until Jackie Robinson came along, though there were other choices.
Why did golf wait? Cause a black man wasn't the GOAT of golfers and they kinda had no choice but admit him or face the backlash from society.

This has to be the most inane post you've ever made and made some dandy ones.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Why did it take until 1947? There wasn't a player good enough, who was willing enough to put up with the racism and not react like any reasonable person would. Not until Jackie Robinson came along, though there were other choices.
Why did golf wait? Cause a black man wasn't the GOAT of golfers and they kinda had no choice but admit him or face the backlash from society.

This has to be the most inane post you've ever made and made some dandy ones.

lmao today we all learned Josh Gibson wasn’t good enough to play in the major leagues…

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

You don't think societal integration in the US was an inevitability? Really?

So you think baseball integration is due to the inevitable victory of woke?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

You don't think societal integration in the US was an inevitability? Really?

the NFL, MLB and NBA all integrated within a few years of each other. Coincidence, I guess.

I didn't call you a meaniehead (see? you did it again), I called you out for a typical diversion tactic used by people who can't argue the point so they instead erect strawmen.

I was hoping that maybe you just weren't aware how often you do it.

The NBA integrated several years after the MLB and, as crazy as it is to think about basketball without black players, probably wouldn’t have done so without baseball leading the way. It was very much a regional league into the early 1960s with teams at various times in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Rochester, and Syracuse, among other places. It was absolutely not coincidence that the NBA integrated a few years after MLB did. The NFL was, fortunately for their time, a lot more “woke” and in particular when the Rams moved to the West Coast they weren’t about to allow former USC and UCLA stars sit around doing nothing due to the color of their skin. So no, that wasn’t “inevitable” either, as much as some would like to pretend that race relations in this country just naturally and magically get better every year.

Otherwise, if you have issues with my tone, take it up with someone else. I’m not going to be respectful of bad arguments. If I’m ridiculing your points, it’s because they’re ridiculous.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Brad K

So you think baseball integration is due to the inevitable victory of woke?

"Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination"

Yes I do. How would you explain it?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

"Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination"

Yes I do. How would you explain it?

IOW, inevitable despite the resistance of white people. Yet was it really inevitable that prejudice and discrimination end? I think not. Reality is in some ways we are going the other direction. Look at what happened to AB/InBev over Bud Light? Baseball integration made the owners money, especially when they could integrate only players who were stars.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The NFL was, fortunately for their time, a lot more “woke” and in particular when the Rams moved to the West Coast they weren’t about to allow former USC and UCLA stars sit around doing nothing due to the color of their skin. So no, that wasn’t “inevitable” either, as much as some would like to pretend that race relations in this country just naturally and magically get better every year.

They became woke when there was money in it.

[Brad K]

Post fast folks, before the magantic mods move the thread to Talk Sports,

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

lmao today we all learned Josh Gibson wasn’t good enough to play in the major leagues…

Alternatively, that Jackie Robinson was uncle tomming it.