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

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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

Would that be every team below 100 wins or every team behind the team with the most wins?
How do you determine if a team is inferior?
Seems to me that if a team can win in the regular season then shouldn't they be able to do the same when it counts even more?

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Would that be every team below 100 wins or every team behind the team with the most wins?
How do you determine if a team is inferior?
Seems to me that if a team can win in the regular season then shouldn't they be able to do the same when it counts even more?

Inferior teams are the teams with fewer wins than the teams with the most wins.

It’s amazing how people are splitting hairs over things like wins.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Inferior teams are the teams with fewer wins than the teams with the most wins.

It’s amazing how people are splitting hairs over things like wins.

Inferior teams are teams which played the same schedule as other teams and had fewer wins. The 1978 Red Sox won 99 games…but Bucky ****ing Dent gave the Yankees their 100th. The fact that the Sawx won more games than the Royals did is irrelevant. Kansas City beat an entire Western Division, playing the same games that the Angels and Twins and so forth did.

Boston did not beat the Yankees. Boston was inferior. Boston did not deserve to be in the post-season. And, as this was before Bud Selig defiled the sport, they were not.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by amazin69

inferior teams are teams which played the same schedule as other teams and had fewer wins. The 1978 red sox won 99 games…but bucky ****ing dent gave the yankees their 100th. The fact that the sawx won more games than the royals did is irrelevant. Kansas city beat an entire western division, playing the same games that the angels and twins and so forth did.

Boston did not beat the yankees. Boston was inferior. Boston did not deserve to be in the post-season. And, as this was before bud selig defiled the sport, they were not.

like

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

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.

All of this has zero to do with the conversation. The Indians won the most games in the AL. The Giants won the most games in the NL. No interleague games. The Giants may have won less games simply because the competition was stronger in the NL. Who knows. In 54 the 2 best teams met in the World Series, period.

I guess I should have quoted your earlier post about the Giant beating the Indians, as this post is about losing consecutive games. My bad.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Would that be every team below 100 wins or every team behind the team with the most wins?
How do you determine if a team is inferior?
Seems to me that if a team can win in the regular season then shouldn't they be able to do the same when it counts even more?

How about we quit arguing this. If you want to continue argue with me go to the America's Team thread and criticize my management decisions. I'll probably agree with you a lot of the time. Wouldn't that be cool?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

All of this has zero to do with the conversation. The Indians won the most games in the AL. The Giants won the most games in the NL. No interleague games. The Giants may have won less games simply because the competition was stronger in the NL. Who knows. In 54 the 2 best teams met in the World Series, period.

Right. It's not consecutive wins. It's how many times they did or didn't win 3 of 5 consecutive.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Inferior teams are teams which played the same schedule as other teams and had fewer wins. The 1978 Red Sox won 99 games…but Bucky ****ing Dent gave the Yankees their 100th. The fact that the Sawx won more games than the Royals did is irrelevant. Kansas City beat an entire Western Division, playing the same games that the Angels and Twins and so forth did.

Boston did not beat the Yankees. Boston was inferior. Boston did not deserve to be in the post-season. And, as this was before Bud Selig defiled the sport, they were not.

I know I'm the one that brought up the 87 Twins, but I actually agree with your post. I don't think the setup you describe is as perfect as the no divisions method of selecting the best teams, but it's better than what we've had since the wild card was introduced.

One of the things that drives me nuts with the wild card is teams in the same division having to meet up. The Orioles have to battle the Rays all season to win the AL East. To then have to beat them again to earn a trip to the World Series seems like a slap in the face.

[Ty Cobb]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

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]

Any fewer reference must include either a picture of Lord Stannis or Sir Davos.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Boston was inferior.

Not after 162 games, as both clubs were 99-63. (Boston would have lost the division title to New York under the current non-game methods, as the Yankees were 8-7 in head-to-head play against the Red Sox.)

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Not after 162 games, as both clubs were 99-63. (Boston would have lost the division title to New York under the current non-game methods, as the Yankees were 8-7 in head-to-head play against the Red Sox.)

I think that's why he brought up the whole Bucky Dent thing and the Yankees getting their 100th win.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by David Watts

One of the things that drives me nuts with the wild card is teams in the same division having to meet up. The Orioles have to battle the Rays all season to win the AL East. To then have to beat them again to earn a trip to the World Series seems like a slap in the face.

It used to be the wild card qualifier would not play the division winner from its own division until the LCS back when there was only one wild card in each league. This was the case from 1998 through 2011. When the second wild card qualifier was added in 2012, this restriction was dropped (although it could have been retained since only one wild card advanced to the next round; the NFL did this from 1978–1989).

For 1994 through 1997, home advantage was assigned to certain divisions and rotated annually, and this affected the Division Series match-ups. This is why in 1997 Cleveland played New York instead of Baltimore. Here is how that happened.

1. Baltimore  East**    98-64  .604
2. Seattle    West      90-72  .555
3. Cleveland  Central*  86-75  .534
------------------------------------
4. New York   East	96-66  .604

This divisions marked with an asterisk had home field advantage; two asterisks indicate that division would also have home field advantage in the LCS if it advanced that far (otherwise it would go to the team that defeated it, excluding the wild card).

New York, as the wild card, would normally play the #1 seed. But since Baltimore was from the same division, it would then play the #2 seed. However, in this case, that #2 seed, Seattle from the West Division, does not have home field advantage, so New York instead plays Cleveland while Baltimore plays Seattle.

This system is similar to what the NFL did from 1970 through 1974.

[slic1149]

I believe after playing 162 games and a grueling month long playoff tournament when a team wins the tournament they are by definition a deserving team. The premise that any team who makes the playoffs and then wins the World Series is anything other than "deserving" is ludicrous.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by slic1149

The premise that any team who makes the playoffs and then wins the World Series is anything other than "deserving" is ludicrous.

The whole thread is deserving of the description "ludicrous" at this point.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by slic1149

I believe after playing 162 games and a grueling month long playoff tournament when a team wins the tournament they are by definition a deserving team. The premise that any team who makes the playoffs and then wins the World Series is anything other than "deserving" is ludicrous.

I have to agree.
The only thing i could see as maybe making it more fair would be making the 7th game a neutral site. Even there i don't see it as ever happening or a great need for it.
Bottom line is that a team knows what it has to do to get to the World Series and win it.
If they fail to do it then that's on them.
99 out of 100 times the1906 cubs would probably beat the white sox.
But they didn't.
We can rank the 1906 cubs as one of the greatest teams but we cant say the white sox don't deserve the 1906 championship.
You might be able to say the 1919 Reds dont deserve it but i'm not willing to go that far.
The 1919 Reds had a pretty good team. If they had won the series without the scandal, would we even be thinking so highly of those 1919 White Sox?

[zappa1]

I agree that any team who makes the world series is deserving. Try telling the players they are not.

[cephasjames]

If a team makes the playoffs, no matter the structure or the number of teams involved, then they are deserving of a chance to win the World Series. The issue, which is what I think this thread is about, is why there are so many teams allowed into the playoffs that, in previous eras, would not be allowed into the playoffs. This same question can be asked of the first wild card team added. And the second.

I, personally, was okay with realigning to three divisions in each league and thus adding a wild card team to the playoffs. But I didn't like it when they added a second wild card. And now, I'm most definitely not a fan of three wild card teams. But, I in no way would say that the two lowest wild card teams in this current playoff structure, which I don't like, are not deserving of a chance at winning the World Series.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by slic1149

I believe after playing 162 games and a grueling month long playoff tournament when a team wins the tournament they are by definition a deserving team. The premise that any team who makes the playoffs and then wins the World Series is anything other than "deserving" is ludicrous.

Interestingly, when the minor league began adopting the Shaughnessy playoff format, there was disagreement as to whether the playoff champion should also be called the league champion.

Some leagues chose to call the team finishing first the league champion, while the team winning the playoffs was called the playoff champion. (The minors were all single-division leagues back then; the first use of two divisions happened in 1958.) However, as the years went on, even the leagues which had made this distinction, eventually stopped doing so and the playoff champion was also the league champion.

[MathBandit]

I think part of this comes down to what each person values. .For someone who thinks the WS winner should be the best team, then yes I think its pretty fair to say that limiting Wild Cards would make that more likely. For someone who enjoys the playoffs as a fun side event to the season, I think having more teams is fun both since its more playoff baseball and also that its fun seeing teams go on a run like the DBacks.

A related question though, that I think will impact how people feel about expanded playoffs- Would you rather be the Atlanta team or the Marlins from 1996-2005? Which was the "better team"? Which would you rather root for for a decade?

Atlanta-

• 977 - 641 record
  • Average record: 98-64
  • Best record: 106-56
  • Worst record: 88 - 74
• 10 Division Titles
• 2 WS losses, 3 NLCS losses, 5 NLDS losses

Marlins-

• 781 - 838 record
  • Average record: 78-84
  • Best record: 92 - 70
  • Worst record: 54 - 108
• 0 Division Titles, 2 Wild Card spots
• 2 WS wins, 8 missed playoffs

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I think part of this comes down to what each person values. .For someone who thinks the WS winner should be the best team, then yes I think its pretty fair to say that limiting Wild Cards would make that more likely. For someone who enjoys the playoffs as a fun side event to the season, I think having more teams is fun both since its more playoff baseball and also that its fun seeing teams go on a run like the DBacks.

A related question though, that I think will impact how people feel about expanded playoffs- Would you rather be the Atlanta team or the Marlins from 1996-2005? Which was the "better team"? Which would you rather root for for a decade?

Atlanta-

• 977 - 641 record
  • Average record: 98-64
  • Best record: 106-56
  • Worst record: 88 - 74
• 10 Division Titles
• 2 WS losses, 3 NLCS losses, 5 NLDS losses

Marlins-

• 781 - 838 record
  • Average record: 78-84
  • Best record: 92 - 70
  • Worst record: 54 - 108
• 0 Division Titles, 2 Wild Card spots
• 2 WS wins, 8 missed playoffs

FWIW I think the question should be how did Atlanta lose in the playoffs so many times, with such a great team. How does Miami's success excuse Atlanta's failure. Teams are ultimately judged not just on how many games they won but instead on which games they lost.