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

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by slic1149

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.

Nothing tops the Buffalo Bills, which lost four Super Bowls in a row. It is the only team of the big pro sports leagues in North America to lose four consecutive league championships; in the other leagues, the number is three consecutive losses.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

All of this has zero to do with the conversation.

What we're seeing here is people who have no point trying to hide that by engaging in whataboutery to a degree normally reserved for political discussions.

[Brad K]

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.)

Oh cool. Now we're gong to go to pick your measuring point. Do you want to argue who was better after 10 games, 90 games, or one game? Maybe when the Pirates played the Rays in May that should count as the World Series. They were the best two teams in baseball at that point.

[Brad K]

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.

Then expand the playoffs to 30 teams. If the A's make it through the "grueling month long playoff" and emerge the winner they are deserving.

You don't have any problem seeing a 50 win team as undeserving. Why don't you see an 84 win team as undeserving?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by zappa1

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

"any team". You want 30 team playoffs? How about throwing in a couple AAA teams to make it 32 since that's a good playoff number.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by slic1149

FWIW I think the question should be how did Atlanta lose in the playoffs so many times, with such a great team.

Small sample size.
.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by 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.

MLB doesn't really think inferior teams are deserving. That's why the system is stacked against the poor teams. Of course, it doesn't really work because the number of games are well under what is needed to qualify as a decent sample size.

[Amazin69]

The 2003 Marlins are one of the reasons I hate the WC. They farted around for two months, going as low as 19-29, fired Torborg and hired Trader Jack (age 72), then got their stuff together to reach 91-71. Which is nice, but still 10 games behind the 101-61 Braves.

Bad enough that they got hot at the right time and won it all, but people actually used their triumph to try to justify the season. "See, the wild-card means the slow start didn't bury them, they had time to fix things." In other words, it turned April and May into exhibition games. The beauty of the long season is that all of the games are important: not just the Five Days in Flushing, but the "is Eric Campbell really hitting clean-up??" early struggles, the wanderings of Kirk Nieuwenhuis as he comes back from exile to make team history (only to see Duda duplicate the feat barely a month later) and then Cespedes rocking the Rocks and the big comebacks in DC and so forth.

An exciting season is like a novel or a song, a complex story of highs and lows. A "take off until Memorial Day, guys, we can always get the WC" season is a cheat. It's the Cliff's Notes. It's the 30-second Spotify preview clip. It's Tik Tok.

Tell me the whole story, please. Warts and all.

(And yeah, my birthday is at the end of May, so perhaps I'm protective of early-season games. But even so.)

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Brad K

MLB doesn't really think inferior teams are deserving. That's why the system is stacked against the poor teams. Of course, it doesn't really work because the number of games are well under what is needed to qualify as a decent sample size.

Meh. Smoke and mirrors. MLB does what they think fans will allow them to get away with. They're not concerned with the quality of teams that make it to the playoffs. They just believe that fans won't think a 6th place team should be on equal footing as a division winner.

[Westheim]

Open question, would the 2007 NL have had a deserving team? Nobody won more than 90 games, and one of the two teams with 90 games only won their 90th in their 163rd attempt.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Open question, would the 2007 NL have had a deserving team? Nobody won more than 90 games, and one of the two teams with 90 games only won their 90th in their 163rd attempt.

The ironic thing is that with this table I would argue the modern 6-team format is more 'fair', since when the top team in the league wins 90 games, 88+ all seem like they deserve a playoff spot.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Meh. Smoke and mirrors. MLB does what they think fans will allow them to get away with. They're not concerned with the quality of teams that make it to the playoffs. They just believe that fans won't think a 6th place team should be on equal footing as a division winner.

Certainly not all fans think that. And many of them are posting here. There's ample thought in this thread that any teams that emerges triumphant from a "grueling" 30 day playoff schedule, just over a fifth of the length of the regular season schedule, with more days off and no day games after night games deserves their win.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Oh cool. Now we're gong to go to pick your measuring point. Do you want to argue who was better after 10 games, 90 games, or one game? Maybe when the Pirates played the Rays in May that should count as the World Series. They were the best two teams in baseball at that point.

Uh, you're the one who has gone on about the best teams or the most deserving teams.

I actually don't care one way or the other, but arguments that clearly seem to me to have shortcomings get a comment.

[David Watts]

I still say changing the round after the wild card round to a best of seven will put an end to a lot of this. Heck, take it a step further and do the 1 game advantage thingy. I have no memory, but didn't the NBA change all series to best of seven series years ago to limit the number of upsets?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Why don't you see an 84 win team as undeserving?

1970 = Pittsburgh 89-73 (NL East winner) — 2nd best record in NL
1973 = NY Mets 82-79 (NL East winner) — 4th best record in NL
1974 = Pittsburgh 88-74 (NL East winner) — tied for 3rd best record in NL
1979 = California 88-74 (AL West winner) — 5th best record in AL
1982 = Atlanta 89-73 (NL West winner) — tied for 2nd best record in NL
1984 = Kansas City 84-78 (AL West winner) — 6th best record in AL
1987 = Minnesota 85-77 (AL West winner) — 5th best record in AL
1988 = Boston 89-73 (AL East winner) — 3rd best record in AL
1989 = Toronto 89-73 (AL East winner) — 4th best record in AL
1990 = Boston 88-74 (AL East winner) — 3rd best record in AL

Which of these teams were undeserving?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I have no memory, but didn't the NBA change all series to best of seven series years ago to limit the number of upsets?

The NBA switched to a best-of-seven first round for the 2002-03 season.

The NHL switched to a best-of-seven first round for the 1986-87 season.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The NBA switched to a best-of-seven first round for the 2002-03 season.

The NHL switched to a best-of-seven first round for the 1986-87 season.

They also don't have teams that bypass a whole round of playoffs with a bye. MLB's best-of-3 exists because people would cry foul if the highest seeded teams had to wait for a best-of-5 or of-7 to finish. People are already questioning whether to cry foul over a bye and a best-of-3. MLB would need to bump the number of teams making into the playoffs to 16 to make that work. Or go back to 8.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

They also don't have teams that bypass a whole round of playoffs with a bye. MLB's best-of-3 exists because people would cry foul if the highest seeded teams had to wait for a best-of-5 or of-7 to finish. People are already questioning whether to cry foul over a bye and a best-of-3. MLB would need to bump the number of teams making into the playoffs to 16 to make that work. Or go back to 8.

He was just answering my question from the post above. I wasn't suggesting the wild card round be changed to a best of seven.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

1970 = Pittsburgh 89-73 (NL East winner) — 2nd best record in NL
1973 = NY Mets 82-79 (NL East winner) — 4th best record in NL
1974 = Pittsburgh 88-74 (NL East winner) — tied for 3rd best record in NL
1979 = California 88-74 (AL West winner) — 5th best record in AL
1982 = Atlanta 89-73 (NL West winner) — tied for 2nd best record in NL
1984 = Kansas City 84-78 (AL West winner) — 6th best record in AL
1987 = Minnesota 85-77 (AL West winner) — 5th best record in AL
1988 = Boston 89-73 (AL East winner) — 3rd best record in AL
1989 = Toronto 89-73 (AL East winner) — 4th best record in AL
1990 = Boston 88-74 (AL East winner) — 3rd best record in AL

Which of these teams were undeserving?

I would add that did it matter?
Most of those teams lost in the postseason.
There's always a chance but it would seem that in most cases the weaker playoff teams get eliminated.
They were good enough to qualify but not good enough to win it all.
That's how it should be.
The best team in the league still has to play good ball.
The lowest seeded team usually has a much harder hill to climb.

[Brad K]

A first place finish by a low win team in division with a division weighted schedule is a rare occurrence. It is no justification for sending several low win teams in a league with a near balanced schedule to the playoffs every year.