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

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

The best team in the league still has to play good ball.

Good luck would work too. Which is much of what you're looking at in short series. If skill were dominate we'd have MLB teams winning 75% of their games like they do in the NFL. Actually more when a team plays deep into the post season.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

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.

Then why are you posting?

[Westheim]

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?

Didn't the 14-team AL play more games out of division than in division? If anything, that would make teams with a weaker in-AL rank by overall record more likely to win the pennant. If the three, four, five best teams in the league are all in the same division, they get a few more games to pile on the weaker division, but only one of them goes to a 5- or 7-game ALCS where for the winner of the weaker division it's not that far short of a coin toss to win the pennant. And they only had to win *one* coin toss. The 2023, 84-78 Snakes won three coin tosses, but it looks like they finally came up tails now.

In defense of the 1973 Mets - Ya Gotta Believe!

[thehef]

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?

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

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

I thought the NBA changed the 1st round to seven games because the ratings were already pretty high, and more games = more $$$. Pretty sure that whenever any of the major sports leagues make a significant change to number of teams and/or games in the postseason (or regular season, for that matter), the overriding or only reason is duckets. Not a criticism, just an is what it is observation.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

I didn't say that all fans like it. I said it's what MLB thinks fans will allow them to get away with. Fans, let alone all fans, liking something is different than them letting MLB get away with something. There are things that fans don't like but they put up with. For instance, I imagine most people who have posted in this thread don't really like having 12 teams in the playoffs. But, as can be read, most people who have posted in this thread put up with it because it is what it is.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Good luck would work too. Which is much of what you're looking at in short series. If skill were dominate we'd have MLB teams winning 75% of their games like they do in the NFL. Actually more when a team plays deep into the post season.

Teams have luck in the regular season.
How do you decide when its all luck or a player's skills?
They play more than 1 game in the postseason.
Not like getting a lucky catch in the super bowl to change the game.
Were Atlanta's wins in the regular season due to skills and the
Rangers were due more to luck?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I didn't say that all fans like it. I said it's what MLB thinks fans will allow them to get away with. Fans, let alone all fans, liking something is different than them letting MLB get away with something. There are things that fans don't like but they put up with. For instance, I imagine most people who have posted in this thread don't really like having 12 teams in the playoffs. But, as can be read, most people who have posted in this thread put up with it because it is what it is.

Clearly your comment indicated a majority. I'd say there's enough comment here supporting big playoffs with wild cards etc that there's considerable doubt about those opposing big playoffs being a majority. I thought "not all" was sufficient with out an extended explanation. My mistake.

It may be that a slight majority in this thread prefer smaller playoffs, or maybe not. They could look stronger than they are because those who support big playoffs are poor advocates of their position, ignoring sample size and engaging in whataboutery. However reading the forums on how fans play OOTP and especially the descriptions of on line leagues it's clear there is a huge percentage that wants large playoffs.

I joined an on line league several years ago where the commissioner told me that I was getting a good team, they made the playoffs the previous year. Then I found out there were 32 teams in four team divisions and first and second in each division made the playoffs. Impossible to say that a team that made the playoffs was a good team. Just an example of the thinking among fans on this board outside of this thread.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Teams have luck in the regular season.
How do you decide when its all luck or a player's skills?
They play more than 1 game in the postseason.
Not like getting a lucky catch in the super bowl to change the game.
Were Atlanta's wins in the regular season due to skills and the
Rangers were due more to luck?

Yes, of course. 100 wins in the regular season are mostly luck and 4 of 7 in the post season are mostly skill.

I see an argument held together with wire and a couple of hunks of twine.

Or considering your avatar, more likely Duct Tape.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by 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.

The AL had a balanced schedule from 1979 through 1993. Clubs played 13 games against each of the other six teams in its division (78 games total) and 12 games against each of the seven teams in the other division (84 games total).

Does this mean you now consider those AL team examples undeserving?


(The NL adopted the AL-style balanced schedule for 1993. Both leagues maintained that balanced schedule through the 1996 season despite moving to three divisions in 1994 — the other teams in the league were played 12 or 13 times each.)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Then why are you posting?

Already answered:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

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

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thank you. The way people keep "missing" this point makes thinking cynical thoughts tempting, but I can't see that sharing them will be helpful.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Teams have luck in the regular season.

There was a Baseball Research Journal article some years back which attempted to quantify this. You can read it here:

Which Great Teams Were Just Lucky?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Thank you. The way people keep "missing" this point makes thinking cynical thoughts tempting, but I can't see that sharing them will be helpful.

Except, as I already noted, the 1979, 1984, and 1988–1990 AL examples were all played under a balanced schedule. Teams played more games against the other division (84) than within their own division (78).

Consequently, those AL teams should now be called undeserving, yes?

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Except, as I already noted, the 1979, 1984, and 1988–1990 AL examples were all played under a balanced schedule. Teams played more games against the other division (84) than within their own division (78).

Consequently, those AL teams should now be called undeserving, yes?

No need for binary thinking. Those teams were less-deserving than their NL counterparts, but they meet my primary qualification, that they won their division. Despite the sloppy scheduling, the 1977 Yankees beat the Red Sox and Orioles and so forth.

That's different from the Phightin' 3rd-placers coming within a sneeze of winning it all last year.

(And they could have made a proper division-centric schedule, if they had wanted. Do 14 per team in-division, 11 per team out. 84 divisional games, 77 out and game 162 is between the teams with the corresponding place in the previous season's standings. If the expansion Jays beat the Bombers because they got an extra game against Seattle while the Yanks had to face KC for the 12th time, I doubt that would invalidate the over-all benefit.

Or you can make it 16/9, which is 96 divisional games, 63 outside, and then the standings-paired teams, from Yanks-Royals down to Js-Ms, play an extra three-game series. Still far better than the 13/12 idea, I say.)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Despite the sloppy scheduling, the 1977 Yankees beat the Red Sox and Orioles and so forth.

For 1977 and 1978 in the AL teams played 90 games in the division (15 games against the 6 other teams) and 72 games against the other division (2 teams played 11 times and the other 5 played 10 times).

The problem was the 15 games were split 8-7 or 7-8, and the 10 games split 5-5. This meant a lot of 2-game series, and more series in total. Adding to that was the odd number of teams in each division, which meant for the last part of the schedule, one team became the 'swing' team playing against the other division so that all the other teams could have mostly divisional opponents to end the season. The result was a complicated mess.

No one was particularly happy with it, and so for 1979 the AL switched to the balanced schedule, which greatly simplified and streamlined the scheduling process.

To put numbers to it:

                  American League
Series
Length   1975 1976   1977 1978   1979 1980
-------------------------------------------
1 game      1    1      -    -      1    -
2 games    84   83    132  160     30   36 
3 games   171  165    176  172    264  252
4 games    70   75     78   72     69   74
5 games     2    2      6    2      1    2
-------------------------------------------
Total     328  326    392  406    365  364

The sharp increase in 2-game series is readily apparent, as its dramatic reduction, along with a big increase in 3-game series, with the move to a balanced schedule.

Originally Posted by Amazin69

(And they could have made a proper division-centric schedule, if they had wanted. Do 14 per team in-division, 11 per team out. 84 divisional games, 77 out and game 162 is between the teams with the corresponding place in the previous season's standings. If the expansion Jays beat the Bombers because they got an extra game against Seattle while the Yanks had to face KC for the 12th time, I doubt that would invalidate the over-all benefit.

Or you can make it 16/9, which is 96 divisional games, 63 outside, and then the standings-paired teams, from Yanks-Royals down to Js-Ms, play an extra three-game series. Still far better than the 13/12 idea, I say.)

For 1993 the NL looked at a variety of scheduling options: 20-6, 18-8, 16-9, 15-10, and 13-12. In the end it went with the balanced schedule, as it was the easiest to work with.

At that time MLB hadn't yet advanced the idea of definitively unequal home-away splits, something it would start doing in 1999. That is, instead of 9 games against an opponent being split 5-4 or 4-5, it would use 6-3 or 3-6, allowing the result to all be 3-game series. Similarly 10 games wouldn't be 5-5, it would be either 6-4 or 4-6, a 4-game series and two 3-game series.

Using such unequal splits would have made the other schedule formats much more doable.

[Jason Moyer]

I'm not a traditionalist about most things, but I'm a fan of going back to 4 playoff teams. 162 games is enough time to determine quality, and I think we generally had better pennant races when there fewer spots up for grabs. In the years where we didn't, it was because a team was so vastly superior that it was entertaining in its own right.

I'd also remove interleague play, because it removed so much of what made the All-Star Game and World Series intriguing. In the 80's and early 90's I always watch both and my interest in baseball wasn't greater than it is now. Part of it was getting to see players and teams that I didn't see all the time.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I'd also remove interleague play, because it removed so much of what made the All-Star Game and World Series intriguing. In the 80's and early 90's I always watch both and my interest in baseball wasn't greater than it is now. Part of it was getting to see players and teams that I didn't see all the time.

Absolutely agree though I am resigned to it never happening.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For 1977 and 1978 in the AL teams played 90 games in the division (15 games against the 6 other teams) and 72 games against the other division (2 teams played 11 times and the other 5 played 10 times). snip

You've made post after post, many of them quite long, about schedules. 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?

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by Brad K

You've made post after post, many of them quite long, about schedules. 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?

The problem is you are the one who is dictating who is deserving instead of playing by the existing rules. Saying the Rangers are undeserving champions is both an insult to the players who actually play the game and their fans. The Rangers played by the rules and won. If you feel so strongly I would urge you to talk to them about their shortcomings. I am sure they will be grateful to get your feedback. In the meantime I will enjoy our city's first World Series championship.

[MathBandit]

I'm reminded of something I first saw in respect to game shows like Survivor or Big Brother (strategic/social games that also have a *ton* of variance in any one given season).

The winner is by definition deserving since they did what they had to do to win. That doesn't mean they were the best or played the best, though, and that's ok.