Why the best team doesn't win the World Series

Malleus Dei · 09-30-2002, 07:46 PM

There's a great article on why the best team doesn't win the World Series at:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark...n/1439168.html

"Since 1989, only one team with the best regular-season record (the 1998 Yankees) has won the World Series."

"'Baseball's unique,' says one AL executive. 'For five months, we play with 25 guys. For one month (September), we play with up to 40. And then in the playoffs, we basically play with about 16. With all of the off days, depth becomes a nonessential element. ... You win 100 games during a regular season with depth. You win in the playoffs with dominant performances from a small group of guys.'"

There's a lot more there; the article is well worth reading.

angry_malkie · 09-30-2002, 11:34 PM

An interesting read, Mal... With one ASTOUNDINGLY stupid quote: "if your closer can just bring a lead home, you're probably going to win."

The only thing i can say here, regrettably, is "well DUH!"

JAttractive · 10-01-2002, 01:56 AM

Case in point: The two Blue Jay World Series teams.

They were never the top team in baseball but they were designed for the playoffs (completely intentional or not is another story). They had a line-up that didn't need tinkering with pinch hitter's or anything like that... just pencil them in and watch it unfold. In the pen they had a couple key guys and the rest were low salary guys to keep costs low and then a couple main starters. Everyone else on the team was little more than adequate and was paid as such to keep the payroll respectable.

sixto · 10-01-2002, 09:43 AM

believe it or not, this is all a result of computers.

once upon a time, winning the pennant was a huge distinction. with 8 teams per league, no divisions, it was easy to tell who was the league champ and it meant something.

expansion brought on divisions. suddenly there were 2 champs per league. but that's ok - you still had to be the best out of 6 or 7 to win your division.

then there were 3 divisions per league. suddenly, there were teams that not only had to beat just 3 teams to make the playoffs - there was 1 team per league that didn't have to beat anybody!

yeah. so what does that all have to do with computers?

well. once upon a time players looked at the money they received for making the playoffs - which they still receive, by the way - as a huge addition to their income. even in the 60s the yankees still negotiated with their players, telling them they could count on a world series share.

now, it's a joke. they use it to buy a spare robot for their neighbor's kids. they use it to buy different color covers for their pools, so that no matter what mood they're in during the winter, their pool reflects it.

players get compensated regardless of how successful they are. let me rephrase that: players get compensated regardless of how successful their team is. why is this? well, quite simply, because it is so overwhelmingly prevalent to measure a player's contribution in terms of pure statistics, as opposed to his contribution to winning, that nothing else, including winning, matters. not to how the players earn their living.

and that's letting alone the truth that many of us feel - that contribution as measured by statistics is not nearly as obvious as some people think. take the case in point of today's (tuesday's) new york post article comparing garret anderson to...carl yastrzemski?

anyway. computers made it possible to differentiate players on a new level. yes, there were statistics before computers, and plenty of them. but i don't know how many people realize that the baseball encyclopedia didn't exist until 1969.

why not? no computers. look at a copy of the baseball encyclopedia. it says so, right there in the preface.

player salaries have escalated because statistics have been turned into the primary tool used to measure value. in turn, the escalation in player salaries has made winning less relevant, as has the weakening of the playoffs through expansion.

because it means nothing to a player to win a pennant, and because you can win a pennant without being the best team in your league, and because teams are measured not by how good the team is, but how good the players are on the team, you've now proceeded to a world where the only thing that matters, besides money, is winning the world series. and at the start of october, more than one quarter of all baseball teams still have a chance to do that. which makes it not all that special, in my book.

all i can say is, bring back pennant races. baseball once had something over the NBA, the NFL - winning your league meant something. now it means nothing.

and that's why the world series means less every year.

6

Draft Dodger · 10-01-2002, 02:01 PM

this is one of the reasons I'm kind of lukewarm to the wild card (and the 3 division system). Especially with the LDS only being 5 games - it's too easy for a lesser team to have a couple of good games and surprise a better team. At the very least, the LDS should be 7 games, and there shouldn't be so many off-days - depth should count in the postseason as well.

GForce22 · 10-01-2002, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
this is one of the reasons I'm kind of lukewarm to the wild card (and the 3 division system). Especially with the LDS only being 5 games - it's too easy for a lesser team to have a couple of good games and surprise a better team. At the very least, the LDS should be 7 games, and there shouldn't be so many off-days - depth should count in the postseason as well.

I'm not positive, but I would be the players union is a big reason for the days off.

GH

slic1149 · 10-01-2002, 03:25 PM

The best team ALWAYS wins the World Series. This sport challenges a team like no other. A 162 game schedule followed by 3 seperate playoff series (wild card, LCS, WS). After playing for well over six months and at the very least 173 games the winner of the marathon is the best. That doesn't mean the team with the most talent wins, just the best team. The Arizona Diamondbacks are the best team in baseball. Why? Because they are the team with World Champion after their name. They will be the best team until someone beats them. There is only one way to quantify success and that is with results. You can turn this into a semantics exercise concerning best vs. most talented if you want but it doesn't effect reality and the reality is the winner of the World Series is the World Champion and that makes them the best team in baseball right up till they lose. We can debate the most talented team in baseball but never the best team. They play a 162 game season and 3 playoff series to find that out. The proof is in the results.

SoxWin · 10-01-2002, 03:37 PM

Quote:

This sport challenges a team like no other.

Personally I feel the NHL playoffs are the most challenging in sport. It's every second night, physical play for over 2 months to win Lord Stanley. No other sport comes close IMO.

Cheers

Rich

Draft Dodger · 10-01-2002, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoxWin
Personally I feel the NHL playoffs are the most challenging in sport. It's every second night, physical play for over 2 months to win Lord Stanley. No other sport comes close IMO.

Cheers

Rich

I'll drink to that.

SoxWin · 10-01-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

I'll drink to that.

Me too, just not Labatts since they turfed MacLean

Hopefully our teams will meet in the playoffs this year and we can revenge the loss of 2 springs ago. Nucks/Av's games are some of the best around.

Cheers

Rich

H I Mcdonough · 10-01-2002, 04:26 PM

Wow, all this hockey talk.

I will say this for the MLB playoffs as opposed to the NHL playoffs: At least in the MLB playoffs, we're talking about 4 very good teams on each side. You aren't going to see a sub-.500 team in the NLCS. Every team in the playoffs is of a certain calibur, some more than others obviously, where as in hockey there are 16 teams and anyone can win it.

I suppose that makes it more exciting for some, but I'm trying to figure out why hockey is the only sport where the regular season records seem to indicate little or nothing. There are far too many hockey teams that come out of nowhere as the 6 or 7 seed and advance in the playoffs. It happens occasionally in the other "big 3" but it happens every year in the NHL.

vtbub · 10-01-2002, 04:38 PM

My opinion is that winning the Stanley Cup is harder than the World Series because it's such a grueling stretch.

Actually, I think the NCAA basketball tourney is the hardest to win in American sport, preparing for teams in big games that you don't expect to play.

With unbalanced schedules, won-loss records can be somewhat deceiving. The Yankees play 38 games against Baltimore and Tampa Bay, while the D-Backs play in a much tougher division.

Anyrate, maybe with the exception of the '88 Dodgers and '90 Reds, I can't say that the best team didn't win the World Series.

GForce22 · 10-01-2002, 04:50 PM

The "best team didn't win" argument is most often given by Braves fans to justify their team's annual postseason failure.

GH

YoungEagle · 10-01-2002, 04:52 PM

To Sixto:

Your theory about the over-valuing of stats in measuring a players contribution to winning...reminds me of an interview of Joe McCarthy (Yankees manager in the 30's). During the interview the reporter asked Joe McCarthy why he liked his club's chance to win... Joe McCarthy called over his second baseman (Joe Gordon) who was fielding grounders nearby. Joe M. asked Joe G. what his batting average was. Joe G. replied that he had no idea. Joe M. then asked Joe G. if they were going to win today, and Joe G. replied, "Yes". Joe M. turned to the reporter and said, "We'll win because we have players like Joe Gordon who could care less what they are hitting". He said, "my guys just want to win".

Jason Moyer · 10-01-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YoungEagle
"We'll win because we have players like Joe Gordon who could care less what they are hitting". He said, "my guys just want to win".

That's interesting. I always assumed those Yankees teams were good because they had Joe Dimaggio, King Kong Keller, Tommy Henrich, Joe Gordon, Bill Dickey, and Phil Rizzuto, all of whom were arguably the best players at their respective position at the time.

Now I know the secret to success is hiring illiterate players. Someone should get Billy Beane on the phone and let him know before he puts together another 100 win season with a tiny payroll.

In all seriousness, I do think baseball would be better if the statistical side were handled by the manager and executives instead of being followed so closely by the players, but what are you gonna do.

Jason

Malleus Dei · 10-01-2002, 07:52 PM

Teams of the last twelve years that had the best record in baseball and did not win the playoffs include the 1990 A's, 1991 Pirates, 1995 Indians, 1996 Indians, 2000 Giants, and 2001 Mariners.

Blind chance would have the team with the best record in baseball winning one playoff of out of eight. Since 1989, the team with the best record in baseball has only won one playoff out of twelve.

Modern Relic · 10-01-2002, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GForce22
The "best team didn't win" argument is most often given by Braves fans to justify their team's annual postseason failure.

GH

If only the Braves had a better manager...

sixto · 10-01-2002, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Moyer
In all seriousness, I do think baseball would be better if the statistical side were handled by the manager and executives instead of being followed so closely by the players, but what are you gonna do.

Jason

yes yes. statistics are obviously very important tools, just not so much in the hands of players, agents and arbitrators. and 95% of the press and fans. they are great for everyone else.

i'm not sure how they worked for joe gordon, although his look pretty nice indeed.

6

twins15 · 10-01-2002, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Modern Relic
If only the Braves had a better manager...

Let's not start this again...

AngelinOF · 10-02-2002, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Teams of the last twelve years that had the best record in baseball and did not win the playoffs include the 1990 A's, 1991 Pirates, 1995 Indians, 1996 Indians, 2000 Giants, and 2001 Mariners.

Teams in the last 12 years that have had the best record in football and not made the Super Bowl (2000 Titans, 1999 Jaguars, 1998 Vikings, 1997 Chiefs & 49'ers [Packers made the SB but lost], 1995 Chiefs, 1994 49'ers, 1992 49'ers, & 1990 49'ers.) Only once has the best record from the AFC & NFC met in the Super Bowl in 1993 when Dallas beat Buffalo but another team with the same record failed to make the AFC championship game.

The main problem I see is that the team with the best record is not necessarily the 'best" team. Especially nowadays the division a team from any sport plays in has a big part in determining what team will have the best record.

10-01-2002, 02:01 PM	#5
Draft Dodger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: formerly of the OTBL Posts: 4,113	this is one of the reasons I'm kind of lukewarm to the wild card (and the 3 division system). Especially with the LDS only being 5 games - it's too easy for a lesser team to have a couple of good games and surprise a better team. At the very least, the LDS should be 7 games, and there shouldn't be so many off-days - depth should count in the postseason as well. __________________ Draft Dodger (Anarchy: Anything goes. The Draft Dodger viewpoint.) Sophmoric[sic] Member of the OOTP Boards (It's not OOTP; it's your computer) 15 GB Webhosting for $6.95 a month IMO we are best off abandoning that sinking ship that is Off Topic to the rats infesting it and just starting a whole new Baseball Forum from scratch.

10-01-2002, 03:25 PM	#7
slic1149 Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 348	The best team ALWAYS wins the World Series. This sport challenges a team like no other. A 162 game schedule followed by 3 seperate playoff series (wild card, LCS, WS). After playing for well over six months and at the very least 173 games the winner of the marathon is the best. That doesn't mean the team with the most talent wins, just the best team. The Arizona Diamondbacks are the best team in baseball. Why? Because they are the team with World Champion after their name. They will be the best team until someone beats them. There is only one way to quantify success and that is with results. You can turn this into a semantics exercise concerning best vs. most talented if you want but it doesn't effect reality and the reality is the winner of the World Series is the World Champion and that makes them the best team in baseball right up till they lose. We can debate the most talented team in baseball but never the best team. They play a 162 game season and 3 playoff series to find that out. The proof is in the results. __________________ To laugh often and love much, to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others, to give one's self, this is to have succeeded. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

09-30-2002, 11:34 PM	#2
angry_malkie Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Scotland Posts: 25	An interesting read, Mal... With one ASTOUNDINGLY stupid quote: "if your closer can just bring a lead home, you're probably going to win." The only thing i can say here, regrettably, is "well DUH!"

10-01-2002, 01:56 AM	#3
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	Case in point: The two Blue Jay World Series teams. They were never the top team in baseball but they were designed for the playoffs (completely intentional or not is another story). They had a line-up that didn't need tinkering with pinch hitter's or anything like that... just pencil them in and watch it unfold. In the pen they had a couple key guys and the rest were low salary guys to keep costs low and then a couple main starters. Everyone else on the team was little more than adequate and was paid as such to keep the payroll respectable.

10-01-2002, 09:43 AM	#4
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	believe it or not, this is all a result of computers. once upon a time, winning the pennant was a huge distinction. with 8 teams per league, no divisions, it was easy to tell who was the league champ and it meant something. expansion brought on divisions. suddenly there were 2 champs per league. but that's ok - you still had to be the best out of 6 or 7 to win your division. then there were 3 divisions per league. suddenly, there were teams that not only had to beat just 3 teams to make the playoffs - there was 1 team per league that didn't have to beat anybody! yeah. so what does that all have to do with computers? well. once upon a time players looked at the money they received for making the playoffs - which they still receive, by the way - as a huge addition to their income. even in the 60s the yankees still negotiated with their players, telling them they could count on a world series share. now, it's a joke. they use it to buy a spare robot for their neighbor's kids. they use it to buy different color covers for their pools, so that no matter what mood they're in during the winter, their pool reflects it. players get compensated regardless of how successful they are. let me rephrase that: players get compensated regardless of how successful their team is. why is this? well, quite simply, because it is so overwhelmingly prevalent to measure a player's contribution in terms of pure statistics, as opposed to his contribution to winning, that nothing else, including winning, matters. not to how the players earn their living. and that's letting alone the truth that many of us feel - that contribution as measured by statistics is not nearly as obvious as some people think. take the case in point of today's (tuesday's) new york post article comparing garret anderson to...carl yastrzemski? anyway. computers made it possible to differentiate players on a new level. yes, there were statistics before computers, and plenty of them. but i don't know how many people realize that the baseball encyclopedia didn't exist until 1969. why not? no computers. look at a copy of the baseball encyclopedia. it says so, right there in the preface. player salaries have escalated because statistics have been turned into the primary tool used to measure value. in turn, the escalation in player salaries has made winning less relevant, as has the weakening of the playoffs through expansion. because it means nothing to a player to win a pennant, and because you can win a pennant without being the best team in your league, and because teams are measured not by how good the team is, but how good the players are on the team, you've now proceeded to a world where the only thing that matters, besides money, is winning the world series. and at the start of october, more than one quarter of all baseball teams still have a chance to do that. which makes it not all that special, in my book. all i can say is, bring back pennant races. baseball once had something over the NBA, the NFL - winning your league meant something. now it means nothing. and that's why the world series means less every year. 6

10-01-2002, 04:26 PM	#11
H I Mcdonough Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 291	Wow, all this hockey talk. I will say this for the MLB playoffs as opposed to the NHL playoffs: At least in the MLB playoffs, we're talking about 4 very good teams on each side. You aren't going to see a sub-.500 team in the NLCS. Every team in the playoffs is of a certain calibur, some more than others obviously, where as in hockey there are 16 teams and anyone can win it. I suppose that makes it more exciting for some, but I'm trying to figure out why hockey is the only sport where the regular season records seem to indicate little or nothing. There are far too many hockey teams that come out of nowhere as the 6 or 7 seed and advance in the playoffs. It happens occasionally in the other "big 3" but it happens every year in the NHL.

10-01-2002, 04:38 PM	#12
vtbub Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Burlington, VT Posts: 143	My opinion is that winning the Stanley Cup is harder than the World Series because it's such a grueling stretch. Actually, I think the NCAA basketball tourney is the hardest to win in American sport, preparing for teams in big games that you don't expect to play. With unbalanced schedules, won-loss records can be somewhat deceiving. The Yankees play 38 games against Baltimore and Tampa Bay, while the D-Backs play in a much tougher division. Anyrate, maybe with the exception of the '88 Dodgers and '90 Reds, I can't say that the best team didn't win the World Series.

10-01-2002, 04:50 PM	#13
GForce22 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	The "best team didn't win" argument is most often given by Braves fans to justify their team's annual postseason failure. GH

10-01-2002, 04:52 PM	#14
YoungEagle Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Wayne, MI Posts: 364	To Sixto: Your theory about the over-valuing of stats in measuring a players contribution to winning...reminds me of an interview of Joe McCarthy (Yankees manager in the 30's). During the interview the reporter asked Joe McCarthy why he liked his club's chance to win... Joe McCarthy called over his second baseman (Joe Gordon) who was fielding grounders nearby. Joe M. asked Joe G. what his batting average was. Joe G. replied that he had no idea. Joe M. then asked Joe G. if they were going to win today, and Joe G. replied, "Yes". Joe M. turned to the reporter and said, "We'll win because we have players like Joe Gordon who could care less what they are hitting". He said, "my guys just want to win".