The Best Teams To Never Go To The World Series

[Chisox73]

I'm sure every one of you out there have experienced heartbreak over your favorite team falling just short of the ultimate goal at one time or another.Whether your team was bounced in the Division Series last October or you have been waiting since Babe Ruth was a toddler,I would like to know what you think was the best team to not win it all.Case in point,the 2001 Mariners and A's.I know there will be some very interesting posts.

I'll start with my pick the 1983 White Sox who won 99 games and won the AL West by 20 games,only to have their hopes dashed by that noted home run hitter Tito Landrum and the Baltimore Orioles in the ALCS.

[Ytown_Tribe_fan]

Good topic. I'd say the '54 Yanks were pretty fair. They won 103 games, but finished 8 games back of the Tribe that season.

The Braves set a standard for underachievement. In 1997 they went 101-61 and knocked off the Giants before falling to the Marlins in the NLCS. The very next year, they went 106-56, knocking off the Cubs before falling to San Diego in the NLCS. In '93, the Braves won 104 before falling to the Phillies in the NLCS.

The '73 Reds won 99 games and lost the NLCS to the 82-79 Mets, which is pretty humbling.

But my all-time post-season underachiever has to be the 2001 Mariners. 116 wins and it was all they could do to get past Cleveland in the ALDS before losing to the Yanks in the ALCS.

[Chisox73]

You won't get a lot of arguments about the 2001 Mariners being post-season underachievers.But how abut the 1993 Giants who won 103 games and finished 1 game behind Atlanta in Barry Bonds' 1st season in Frisco.

[Ytown_Tribe_fan]

That team, along with the '94 strike, really got the ball rolling on the wildcard.

[trosmok]

The 1981 Cincinnati Reds, as well as the '81 St.Louis Cardinals won the most games in their respective divisions over the course of the lockout interrupted season. The owners decided to "split" the season into two halves, and thus, the Reds and Cards were not even in the division playoffs, let alone the NLCS and were, in my mind (and backed up by their W/L record,) better teams than the Dodgers or Yankees that screwy year.

[fenwayjeff]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-01 AT 03:49 PM (EST)]Gang-

Not sure on their exact record/numbers/stats/etc. but I need to put in a vote for my 1978 Red Sox, who were eliminated from even making the AL Playoffs in the illustrious 163rd game of the season by one, Bucky Dent? Go figure?

Also, among recent teams, how about the 1994 ChiSox? That squad looked great until the strike?

-FenwayJeff-
mod for the 'Sox

[Chisox73]

That '94 White Sox team sure looked good.Just think,a Chisox-Expos World Series,but then again this isn't a perfect world.But the only good thing that came out of '94 was that we did not have a sub .500 team make the playoffs which would have been the Texas Rangers who were 12 games under .500 and leading the AL West in '94.

[Sports Fan 07]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-01 AT 06:09 PM (EST)]The answer is:

2001 Seattle Mariners
1904 Giants
1909 Cubs
1942 Brooklyn Dodgers
1954 Yankees
1915 Tigers
1994 Expos
1993 Braves
1928 Phil As
1908 NY Giants
1908 Pirates
1980 Yankees
1993 Giants
1941 Cardinals
1906 NY Giants
1977 Royals
1905 Pirates
1997 Braves
1961 Tigers
1976-77 Phillies
1949 Red Sox
1935 Cardinals
1920 White Sox
1909 Phil As
1919 Giants
1994 Yankees
1948 Red Sox
1972 Pirates
1962 Dodgers
1951 Dodgers

[Chisox73]

Great list SportsFan 07!

I got a couple of more.The 1987 Tigers who had the best record in baseball at 98-64 only to get bounced in 5 games by Minnesota in the ALCS.My other is the 1984 Cubs had the top NL mark at 96-65 but lost to San Diego in the NLCS in 5.('84 was the last year of the best of 5 in LCS play.)

[Steve Jeltz]

The 1990-1992 Pirates. Talentwise, they were the best team in the NL in those years, in my opinion, with Bonds, Bonilla, Bell, Drabek, Van Slyke etc., but they lacked that dominant closer, which came to haunt them in 1992. It also didn't help that Bonds and Bonilla stopped hitting in the 1990 NLCS and in 1991 running into a Brave's team riding high on emotion. Still, the Pirates had a 3-2 lead in that series, then Avery and Smoltz shut them down in games 6 and 7. And, of course, everyone remembers Cabrera' s hit and Bream's dash in 1992, but what seems to be forgotten is Jose Lind's error during that same 9th inning.

Another team not mentioned is the 1990 Oakland A's. Steamrolled to the division title, demolished the Red Sox in the ALCS and just got whipped by the Reds in 4 games. I find it hard to believe that the 1988-1990 A's won only one World Series.

[Blackout]

1994 expos

[RuthMayBond]

Another team not mentioned is the 1990 Oakland A's. Steamrolled to the division title, demolished the Red Sox in the ALCS and just got whipped by the Reds in 4 games.Um, I think they did go to the World Series :noidea

[Iron Jaw]

The 1980 Orioles were a very good team. They won 100 games - but the Yankees, also in the AL East, won 103. But the Yankees didn't go either. They lost to the Royals in the ALCS.

Such is playoff baseball. Some very good teams failed to go to the World Series. In many cases, because of the playoff format, the best team sat at home during the series, while a team that got hot for a few days got the nod.

[Steve Jeltz]

Um, I think they did go to the World Series :noidea

Ooops, I misread the the topic title. :o

[Victory Faust]

If I'm not mistaken, the 1906 Cleveland Indians were one of the few teams ever to lead the league in hitting, pitching and defense, and still go home come October.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You won't get a lot of arguments about the 2001 Mariners being post-season underachievers.But how abut the 1993 Giants who won 103 games and finished 1 game behind Atlanta in Barry Bonds' 1st season in Frisco.

I haven't gotten over 1993! :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy

The Giants lost the final 2003 home game to the Rockies. The Braves swept the season series for the Rockies, 13-0. I've hated the Rockies ever since. :grouchy

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The 2000 Giants had the best record in baseball (97 wins) and got upset my the Mets. :grouchy

[sschirmer]

The 1969 Cubs really choked in September, but had a great ballclub. Santo, Williams, Banks, and Hundley coupled with a staff led by Kenny Holtzman and Fergie. Good club, but not enough to handle the Amazin's.

[RuthMayBond]

If I'm not mistaken, the 1906 Cleveland Indians were one of the few teams ever to lead the league in hitting, pitching and defense, and still go home come October.Not only did they not finish first, they didn't finish second. And the 1904 team, which wasn't much worse, finished FOURTH! There's also 1885 NY, 22 Browns, 56 Braves, 82 Dodgers, and the 82 Expos were darn good and finished SIXTH of twelve in the league :eek:

[flash143817]

I haven't gotten over 1993! :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy :grouchy

The Giants lost the final 2003 home game to the Rockies. The Braves swept the season series for the Rockies, 13-0. I've hated the Rockies ever since. :grouchy

So can we assume that Salomon Torres is your favorite player ever?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So can we assume that Salomon Torres is your favorite player ever?

I don't blame Torres, I blame Dusty Baker. :grouchy

He "saved" Billy Swift for Monday's one game playoff with the Braves that never happened. He should have pitched Swift on Sunday. :grouchy

[64Cards]

The 1969 Cubs really choked in September, but had a great ballclub. Santo, Williams, Banks, and Hundley coupled with a staff led by Kenny Holtzman and Fergie. Good club, but not enough to handle the Amazin's.
I'll challenge the notion that the 69 Cubs were a "great" team. Great teams don't blow 8 game leads in late August and end up finishing 8 games out. The 69 Cubs won 92, which is good enough to win a pennant some years. That was year 3 of a 6 year run the Cubs had, when they actually had winning seasons every season. But 69 was their high water mark, every other one of those seasons their win total was in the mid-80's. As Schirmer mentioned, some very good players in their lineup, plus 3 top starters [Fergie, Holtzman, Hands] but their depth, both in their bench and pitching, was very weak.

[Myankee4life]

How bout the 2002 Yankees they won 103 games (the most won in the Torre era) and had Jeter, Williams, Soriano, Giambi all have mvp type seasons.
The pitching was Clemens, Mussina, Wells, Pettite with Rivera closing.

They lost in the first round to the wildcard team.

AND the 1997 Yankees simply because it was the only team from 96-01 to not win a pennant.

[Iron Jaw]

Another great ballclub was the 1962 Dodgers. The Dodgers and Giants tied for the NL title that year, both finishing with a 101-61 record. Thus, a best of three playoff series was established to break the tie. The Giants won 2-1.

[cubbieinexile]

The early 90's Pirates were a very good team. Barry Bonds, Bobby Bonilla, Andy Van Slyke, Jay Bell, Doug Drabek, and John Smiley.

[Steve Jeltz]

1951 Dodgers
The 1980,81 and 82 Montreal Expos. Only made the playoffs once and it was during the strike year of 1981.

[STLCards2]

In my opinion, the '93 Braves team was the most talented of all during the Braves' run. Maddux won the Cy Young, Glavine won a career-high 22, Smoltz had a good season, even Avery was still productive. If I am not mistaken, Justice had a great season, Gant was pretty good when healthy, McGriff was huge the second half, and even Jeff Blauser was an offensive threat. They won over 100 games, then blew it against an overachieving Philies team. What made it worse, was that the Braves had to fight hard to win the division over that loaded Bonds-Williams-Clark, Giants team.

Thank gosh for '95.

[RuthMayBond]

I'll challenge the notion that the 69 Cubs were a "great" team.They had very good pitching (although a 120 ERA+ only got them third) but their adjusted hitting was horrible (two spots from last)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I got one for everyone, the 1922 St. Louis Browns. Yes, everyone thinks the 1944 Browns were the best Browns team ever but that's not true. The 1922 Browns lead the AL in runs scored and team ERA and the second fewest runs allowed. The finished one game behind the Yankees. A very good team:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SLB/1922.shtml

[RuthMayBond]

The 1980,81 and 82 Montreal Expos. Only made the playoffs once and it was during the strike year of 1981.The 82 Expos had Carter, Oliver, Wallach, Dawson, Raines, SRogers, Gullickson, Reardon . . . and finished third :eek:

[64Cards]

They had very good pitching (although a 120 ERA+ only got them third) but their adjusted hitting was horrible (two spots from last)
The Cubs were 5th in runs given up in 69, with 611. Ny was 2nd, gave up 70 less runs. I haven't the slightest idea what adjusted hitting is, but the Cubs were 3rd in the league in runs scored, with 720, the Mets were 9th with 632.

Looks like good pitching beat good hitting again.

[cubbieinexile]

Actually it was great pitching with great defense beat tired worn out starters. Durocher rode his starters hard and they wore out and slumped.

Take a look at the Cubs splits for that year. In septemeber the Cubs offense slumps by over a run a game and their runs allowed jumps by more then one run as well.

The Mets pitching/defense was not on the same level as the Cubs offense. It was better, much better then the Cubs offense. So you are not comparing equal levels of talent.

The Cubs played in Wrigley Field so their runs scored value is inflated above their true talent level as well.

[KHenry14]

Correct me if I'm wrong Cubbie, but didn't Leo also wear out his position players too? My memory is that he pretty much went with the same 8 the last two months of the year, and Ernie wasn't exactly young at that point.

KH14

[64Cards]

Actually it was great pitching with great defense beat tired worn out starters. Durocher rode his starters hard and they wore out and slumped.

True. But Leo didn't have any confidence in his bench, for good reason. Take a look at his 69 roster, as I mentioned earlier, the Cubs didn't have much depth, beyond the starters and about 4-5 pitchers. They really played over their heads to win 92.

That being said, the Mets really caught lightning in a bottle, winning 100. Not to mention sweeping the Barves and beating a truly great O's team in 5. Even Gil Hodges said after, "No way. It can't be done."

[sschirmer]

Correct me if I'm wrong Cubbie, but didn't Leo also wear out his position players too? My memory is that he pretty much went with the same 8 the last two months of the year, and Ernie wasn't exactly young at that point.

KH14

Good point, but position players, with the exception of catchers, obviously don't wear out like the men on the mound.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

True. But Leo didn't have any confidence in his bench, for good reason. Take a look at his 69 roster, as I mentioned earlier, the Cubs didn't have much depth, beyond the starters and about 4-5 pitchers. They really played over their heads to win 92.

That being said, the Mets really caught lightning in a bottle, winning 100. Not to mention sweeping the Barves and beating a truly great O's team in 5. Even Gil Hodges said after, "No way. It can't be done."

The Mets humilated one of the greatest teams ever. Here are my list of greatest World series upsets:

1914 Boston Braves vs Philadelphia A's
1906 Chicago White Sox vs Cubs
1969 N.Y. Mets vs Baltimore Orioles
1988 LA Dodgers vs Oakland A's

[64Cards]

The Mets humilated one of the greatest teams ever. Here are my list of greatest World series upsets:

1914 Boston Braves vs Philadelphia A's
1906 Chicago White Sox vs Cubs
1969 N.Y. Mets vs Baltimore Orioles
1988 LA Dodgers vs Oakland A's
Good list Hans, I'll toss in a few more
1954 NY Giants over Cleveland
1960 Pittsburgh over Ny Yankees
1985 KC Royals over St. Louis

[wamby]

Good list Hans, I'll toss in a few more
1954 NY Giants over Cleveland
1960 Pittsburgh over Ny Yankees
1985 KC Royals over St. Louis

Please allow me to add:

1966 Orioles over Dodgers

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

i agree with the 1983 white sox also. but i will say and some of you may think i am crazy but the 1962 new york mets. they were not as bad as most people think they were.they lost alot of very close games and the games were very entertaining.they had a good squad but they were a little over the hill.maybe i am crazy but. :laugh :laugh :waving :radio :radio ;)

[Redondos]

The Mets humilated one of the greatest teams ever. Here are my list of greatest World series upsets:

1914 Boston Braves vs Philadelphia A's
1906 Chicago White Sox vs Cubs
1969 N.Y. Mets vs Baltimore Orioles
1988 LA Dodgers vs Oakland A's

One very underrated upset was the 1971 WS. The Orioles came into the series with four 20 game winners in their rotation. (Dave McNally, Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar, and Pat Dobson). Although both teams had strong batting lineups, the Orioles were the decided favorities over the Pirates because of their pitching, defense, and postseason experience. Pirate manager Danny Murtaugh started six different pitchers in the series and miraculously came out on top, 4 games to 3. Pittsburgh pulled off the upset with very timely hitting from Roberto Clemente, Manny Sanguillen, and Bob Robertson. But his unheralded pitching staff came through in the clutch, including a 2 hit shutout from Nelson Briles (an 8 game winner during the regular season) and a pair of 1-run complete game wins from Steve Blass. In my opinion, the 1971 WS upset tops that of his earlier 1960 triumph over the Yankees.

[Iron Jaw]

Briles was a vet though, and was in the WS twice before with St. Louis (he beat the BoSox once in 1967). He was hurt for part of the 1971 season.

Unheralded pitching staffs though, on occasion, come up with surprises. Someone mentioned the 1966 WS when Baltimore's unheralded staff shut the door on the Dodgers. The Dodgers didn't score after the second inning of the opener, off McNally. Drabowsky came out of the bullpen and shut them down (with 11 K's), then Palmer, Bunker and McNally tossed shutouts. Of course, if one looks at the careers of Palmer and McNally, this wouldn't be a surprise. But at the time, they were youngsters, and just emerging in the AL. The Oriole ace, Steve Barber, had been pretty much out of action since the all-star break. However, they had a great bullpen with Stu Miller, Eddie Fisher and Drabowsky, along with newcomer Eddie Watt (who started a few that season). But, other than Drabowsky in the opener, relievers were not needed in the series.

Of course, the Dodger's starting quartet was Koufax, Drysdale, Osteen and Sutton, and they had Regan and Perranoski in the bullpun. Koufax had a great year, but Drysdale had an off-year. Osteen was good, and Sutton was a rookie. Regan was amazing and Perranoski good.

The Oriole hitters were good, and had power - and some speed (Aparicio). The Dodgers had very little power, good speed, but their averages were generally down that season. Both teams won in the 90's (the O's 97, Dodgers 95). The O's waltzed to the Pennant and the Dodgers walked the tightwire. The O's were relaxed while the Dodgers were tired. And it showed.

[mordeci]

The Mets humilated one of the greatest teams ever. Here are my list of greatest World series upsets:

1914 Boston Braves vs Philadelphia A's
1906 Chicago White Sox vs Cubs
1969 N.Y. Mets vs Baltimore Orioles
1988 LA Dodgers vs Oakland A's

'90 Reds sweeping the A's.

[Redondos]

[QUOTE=Iron Jaw]Briles was a vet though, and was in the WS twice before with St. Louis (he beat the BoSox once in 1967). He was hurt for part of the 1971 season. [QUOTE]

Nellie was hurt, not just for part of the 1971 season, but the year before as well (only a 6-7 record in 1970 and a skyhigh 6.24 ERA). Postseason veteran or not, he was up against McNally, who had "only" won 87 games the previous 4 years and had gone 6-1 in the postseason, up to the 5th game of the 1971 series. It wasn't even a given that Nellie would get to start in a series game. But Murtaugh, not announcing who his starters would be until the day before or the morning of the game, went with Briles and his instincts paid off. Briles confounded the world by firing a 2-hitter.

You bring up a good point about the 1966 series. Yes, the Dodgers (esp. their pitching staff) were tired coming into that year's series. But Walter Alston had no choice. LA didn't clinch the pennant until the final day of the season, when Koufax had to pitch a complete game win. (The bullpen was used up in the first game of a doubleheader earlier that day.) The Oriole frontline pitchers of Palmer and McNally had the luxury of two additional days of rest.

But take nothing away from the '66 Orioles, though. Keep in mind that the '65 Dodgers that won the world championship also had to win the pennant in a tight race, not clinching until the 2nd to the last day of the season. Yet, the sheer brilliance of Koufax, Drysdale, and Osteen carried LA past a Minnesota team that breezed to a pennant. But 1966 would be a different story. Maybe had the Orioles won the title in 6 or 7 games, it wouldn't have been that great of a surprise. But in 4 games? With a staff ERA of 0.50? Now THAT, was unexpected.

[Steve Jeltz]

:laugh but i will say and some of you may think i am crazy but the 1962 new york mets. they were not as bad as most people think they were.they lost alot of very close games and the games were very entertaining.they had a good squad but they were a little over the hill.maybe i am crazy but. :laugh :laugh :waving :radio :radio ;)

You're not crazy. Those 62 Mets, if they would have just caught a few more breaks, would have won the pennant and beat the Yankees. It was the umpires fault that the Mets didn't win the pennant! :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Iron Jaw]

:laugh

Those 62 Mets, if they would have just caught a few more breaks :laugh :laugh :laugh

.....and perhaps, caught a few more balls.....

[wamby]

That team, along with the '94 strike, really got the ball rolling on the wildcard.

The strike had nothing to do with setting up the wild-card. The wild-card was already in place for the 1994 season.

[Iron Jaw]

The strike had nothing to do with setting up the wild-card. The wild-card was already in place for the 1994 season.

1994 was the maiden year of the wildcard and the three-division per league setup. Embarrassingly enough, and relatively unnoticed because the season ended in shame, the Texas Rangers were leading their division with a 51-62 record at the time the players walked. Thus, a sub-.500 team could have been a division champion (and essentially, since the season ended, they were) and potential World Series team. That is still very much a possibility. The Padres are currently leading their division with a 54-55 record. As far as I'm concerned a losing team should in no way be considered for post-season play. But the current setup certainly allows for that to happen. And with a little luck at playoff time, a sub .500 team could wind up in the World Series.

[Bluesteve32]

i agree with the 1983 white sox also. but i will say and some of you may think i am crazy but the 1962 new york mets. they were not as bad as most people think they were.they lost alot of very close games and the games were very entertaining.they had a good squad but they were a little over the hill.maybe i am crazy but. :laugh :laugh :waving :radio :radio ;)

Wan't that the team with Marvelous Marv Throneberry, who tripled and missed both first and second base?

[wamby]

1994 was the maiden year of the wildcard and the three-division per league setup. Embarrassingly enough, and relatively unnoticed because the season ended in shame, the Texas Rangers were leading their division with a 51-62 record at the time the players walked. Thus, a sub-.500 team could have been a division champion (and essentially, since the season ended, they were) and potential World Series team. That is still very much a possibility. The Padres are currently leading their division with a 54-55 record. As far as I'm concerned a losing team should in no way be considered for post-season play. But the current setup certainly allows for that to happen. And with a little luck at playoff time, a sub .500 team could wind up in the World Series.

That would be about as bad as the 2002 World Series, when two second place teams faced off in the World Series. I think the wild-card has been the worst of Bud's innovations.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Wan't that the team with Marvelous Marv Throneberry, who tripled and missed both first and second base?
6-17-1962 chicago cubs at new york mets at the polo grounds
Yes it was. i dont know what marv was thinking about missing those bases in that game but the play cost the mets the game. they would have won the game. this was the same game that lou brock of the cubs hit a homerun into the centerfield bleachers at the polo grounds.Hank Aaron did the same thing the next day by hitting another and last ever homerun into the polo grounds centerfield bleachers.i listen to that marv game every so often i have it on audio tape.

[sschirmer]

That would be about as bad as the 2002 World Series, when two second place teams faced off in the World Series. I think the wild-card has been the worst of Bud's innovations.


I disagree, if only from the standpoint of keeping many cities interested in the playoff race deeper into the season. From that perspective, it's a good thing.

[cubbieinexile]

Like it or not the Wild Card has achieved what it was intended to do which was generate interest in baseball in more cities then usual. Which in turn generates more revenue to MLB.

A perfect example would be the Chicago Cubs since the inception of the Wild Card the Cubs have been in the hunt for 4 Wild Cards and getting the Wild Card once. Without the Wild Card the Cubs would have only gone to the playoffs once and had only one other legit shot at going to the playoffs. Because of the Wild Card the Cubs have had a shot at going to the playoffs 5 times in 10 years. That perceived contention has generated a lot of interest in the Cubs and have entertained countless Cub fans. Something that would not have happened without the Wild Card.

[wamby]

I disagree, if only from the standpoint of keeping many cities interested in the playoff race deeper into the season. From that perspective, it's a good thing.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't buy it. I would rather see the best teams fight for a post-season spot then some second place wannabes.

I grew up following a team that never contended in the playoff race and it didn't have any effect on how I felt about the game or the pennant races.

[64Cards]

I disagree, if only from the standpoint of keeping many cities interested in the playoff race deeper into the season. From that perspective, it's a good thing.
Well, hell, lets just make MLB like the NHL & NBA and let 4 teams from each division in the playoffs!!! Good God, that is what in the past made MLB so great. To win it all, you really had to earn your way in, not just basically slide by in the regular season and then turn it on in the playoffs. Maybe I'm an old-time weirdo, but I think the regular season should still mean something. I can't get excited about .500 teams getting lucky and contending for a league championship in any sport. :ughh

[moviegeekjan]

Something that would not have happened without the Wild Card.

Something that would NOT have happened in the past WITH the Wild Card:
Bobby Thompson's "shot heard round the world"

[cubbieinexile]

Something that would not have happened without the Wild Card, the Yanks and Red Sox in a playoff series. Something else that would not have happened without the Wild Card, Boston beating the Yankees 4-3 after being down 0-3.

[cubbieinexile]

Well, hell, lets just make MLB like the NHL & NBA and let 4 teams from each division in the playoffs!!! Good God, that is what in the past made MLB so great. To win it all, you really had to earn your way in, not just basically slide by in the regular season and then turn it on in the playoffs. Maybe I'm an old-time weirdo, but I think the regular season should still mean something. I can't get excited about .500 teams getting lucky and contending for a league championship in any sport. :ughh


Everybody says things like this. About the supposed golden era of baseball and how baseball was so great because of only the best move on to the world series. The problem is that the supposed golden age of baseball, the 50's and 60's, was one of the least popular eras for baseball.

[64Cards]

Something else we would have also missed, the Cubs collapse in the 2003 NLCS to the wild-card marlins, capped off by the memorable meltdown in Game 6, whom the Cubs and their fans blamed on some poor schmuck trying to catch a foul ball. :D

[cubbieinexile]

The other thing we would have missed is the 2004 Wild Card Boston Red Sox sweeping the St.Louis Cards 4 games to 0

[64Cards]

The other thing we would have missed is the 2004 Wild Card Boston Red Sox sweeping the St.Louis Cards 4 games to 0
At least we made it to the WS. I've seen my team make 7 trips to the WS in my lifetime. And Cubbie, unless you are old enough to remember that last glorious season the Cubs were in, which was also a rather bad season for Hitler and Japan, you've never seen your team in the WS. And I believe the Cubs are closing in on 100 years between actually winning a WS.

:eek:

[cubbieinexile]

And what does that have to do with the Wild Card? If you don't like taunting then don't start writing smart-ass comments that add nothing to the conversation.

[64Cards]

It has nothing to do with the wild-card. But only a Cub fan is foolish enough to criticize another teams failure in the WS, considering they have avoided making it in 60 years.

As for the Bosox coming from 0-3 to beat the Yanks, yeah, great achievement, but I don't think 2nd place teams belong in post-season. That's what they play 162 games for.

[Bluesteve32]

It has nothing to do with the wild-card. But only a Cub fan is foolish enough to criticize another teams failure in the WS, considering they have avoided making it in 60 years.

As for the Bosox coming from 0-3 to beat the Yanks, yeah, great achievement, but I don't think 2nd place teams belong in post-season. That's what they play 162 games for.

What is your proposal to allieviate the situation?

Pease don't say no divisions for each league or return to two divisions in each league, because that is not going to happen.

[cubbieinexile]

It has nothing to do with the wild-card. But only a Cub fan is foolish enough to criticize another teams failure in the WS, considering they have avoided making it in 60 years.

As for the Bosox coming from 0-3 to beat the Yanks, yeah, great achievement, but I don't think 2nd place teams belong in post-season. That's what they play 162 games for.


So what kind of person is foolish enough to start hurling insults when no one was doing that before?

On the internet they are called trolls.

[wamby]

Something that would not have happened without the Wild Card, the Yanks and Red Sox in a playoff series. Something else that would not have happened without the Wild Card, Boston beating the Yankees 4-3 after being down 0-3.

So what if it would have never happened. A second place team has no business being in the post-season. That used to be one of the best things about MLB, that a post-season spot had to be earned the hard way. I'm already dreading the day that Selig decides to shorten the season back to 154 games and adds two more wild card teams. Or four more etc,

Any team that reaches the World Series via the wild card deserves to have a big fat asterisk next to their name.

[Iron Jaw]

Everybody says things like this. About the supposed golden era of baseball and how baseball was so great because of only the best move on to the world series. The problem is that the supposed golden age of baseball, the 50's and 60's, was one of the least popular eras for baseball.

I was born in November of 1955, so I became a baseball fan in the 1960's. I'll tell you right now, baseball was considerably more popular at that time than it is now. Of course, you can't tell with dollar amounts, or the attendance figures from the ballparks (heck, at that time, many of the games were day games). But virtually everybody in America knew and loved the game. As a kid, I could walk down the street and find a pickup game. Try that today. As a kid, in school, we traded baseball cards. Today they trade Yugio or Pokeman cards. Most kids knew the starting lineup of their home team - and some of us, the entire league. The kids who pal around with my kid might know who two or three players in the league are. We knew every team - kids today, only know a few. If we didn't go to the game or watch it on TV, we read about it in the paper. Just about every town had recreational baseball leagues for adults.....not just little league. Today, it's slow-pitch softball for adults and soccer for kids. Yes, they still have little league baseball. I know, I coach my kid's teams. But the sign up for soccer outweighs the sign up for little league considerably. We used wooden bats then - even when I was in high school in the early 1970's. Today, the kids use aluminum.

Baseball was America's team sport then, hands down. The NFL and the upstart AFL were not even a close second. Basketball a distant third - and Hockey, a very distant fourth - nobody played soccer except a few visiting foreigners. Today, NFL Football is the most popular game in America. Baseball is the distant second. It seems, everyone cares about football today. They may not have ever played it, but everyone seems to be an expert on NFL football.

Baseball had no competition then. Baseball at that time played a 162 game schedule, and the teams in each league that survived that marathon with the most wins were awarded with a World Series trip. Today, a team can hang in close, grab a Wildcard slot, or win a weak division with a so-so record, then get a little hot for a couple of weeks and get a series trip. The team that survives the 162 game marathon has to stay hot all season - not just a week or two. Even teams that win only 60 games are capable of getting hot for a week.

The World Series was played during the daylight hours, and it was over the first week of October - not too much overlap in the pro sport seasons. At the schools, the teachers allowed transistor radios in the classroom when the games were on. Everybody cared about the World Series.

Baseball players completed every season during that decade. In the three decades that followed, three strikes affected parts of four seasons (1972, 1981, 1994 and 1995). Baseball players at the time stayed with their club until traded, waived or released - because of the Reserve Clause, free agency was awarded only after a release. Team changes were via trade. Teams built their clubs from the system and trades.

I personally believe the 1950's were baseball's heyday - and the 1960's weren't far behind. I think the tide started turning the other way beginning in the 1970's.

[cubbieinexile]

Well so what if Bobby Thomson's home run never happened? We can marganilize any event in baseball history if we want to.

The point being that what happened in 2004 was one of the all time historical events in baseball history. If you think because one of the teams was a wild card it wasn't an exciting series or that it wasn't memorable, welll then oh well. Your loss, the rest of the baseball world rather liked it.

[cubbieinexile]

I was born in November of 1955, so I became a baseball fan in the 1960's. I'll tell you right now, baseball was considerably more popular at that time than it is now. Of course, you can't tell with dollar amounts, or the attendance figures from the ballparks (heck, at that time, many of the games were day games). But virtually everybody in America knew and loved the game. As a kid, I could walk down the street and find a pickup game. Try that today. As a kid, in school, we traded baseball cards. Today they trade Yugio or Pokeman cards. Most kids knew the starting lineup of their home team - and some of us, the entire league. The kids who pal around with my kid might know who two or three players in the league are. We knew every team - kids today, only know a few. If we didn't go to the game or watch it on TV, we read about it in the paper. Just about every town had recreational baseball leagues for adults.....not just little league. Today, it's slow-pitch softball for adults and soccer for kids. Yes, they still have little league baseball. I know, I coach my kid's teams. But the sign up for soccer outweighs the sign up for little league considerably. We used wooden bats then - even when I was in high school in the early 1970's. Today, the kids use aluminum.

Baseball was America's team sport then, hands down. The NFL and the upstart AFL were not even a close second. Basketball a distant third - and Hockey, a very distant fourth - nobody played soccer except a few visiting foreigners. Today, NFL Football is the most popular game in America. Baseball is the distant second. It seems, everyone cares about football today. They may not have ever played it, but everyone seems to be an expert on NFL football.

Baseball had no competition then. Baseball at that time played a 162 game schedule, and the teams in each league that survived that marathon with the most wins were awarded with a World Series trip. Today, a team can hang in close, grab a Wildcard slot, or win a weak division with a so-so record, then get a little hot for a couple of weeks and get a series trip. The team that survives the 162 game marathon has to stay hot all season - not just a week or two. Even teams that win only 60 games are capable of getting hot for a week.

The World Series was played during the daylight hours. At the schools, the teachers allowed transistor radios in the classroom when the games were on. Everybody cared about the World Series.

Baseball players completed every season during that decade. In the three decades that followed, three strikes affected parts of four seasons (1972, 1981, 1994 and 1995). Baseball players at the time stayed with their club until traded, waived or released - because of the Reserve Clause, free agency was awarded only after a release. Team changes were via trade. Teams built their clubs from the system and trades.

I personally believe the 1950's were baseball's heyday - and the 1960's weren't far behind. I think the tide started turning the other way beginning in the 1970's.


Playing baseball and enjoying baseball is different then MLB. The actual sport of baseball or any sport can be extremely popular but its professional version of it can be a dud.

If the 50's was the heyday for baseball I feel sorry for the people of that era. Apparently most of them missed it, because very few of them were going to games.

In 1947 with the war time restrictions gone and the boys back baseball shot up to its highest point in attendance. It then gave most of it back until 1952 where it hit its lowpoint for the NL. The AL had its high point in 1948 and reached its low point in 1953. The AL did not match its high point of 1948 until 1978 with only 1977 and 1949 even coming close to the 1948 level. The NL because its height was not as high as the AL reached the 1947 level in the 1958 to 1960 era, but fell back afterwards at it wasn't until about 1965 where the offensive level reached 1948 levels and stayed above consistently. Though there were two years shortly afterwards that the attendance fell below.

The 50's and 60's in terms of attendance was a stagnant era. A period of little growth, if anything the moves and expansion generated enough interest in new markets that it kept the attendance from declining.

[wamby]

Well so what if Bobby Thomson's home run never happened? We can marganilize any event in baseball history if we want to.

The point being that what happened in 2004 was one of the all time historical events in baseball history. If you think because one of the teams was a wild card it wasn't an exciting series or that it wasn't memorable, welll then oh well. Your loss, the rest of the baseball world rather liked it.

I don't agree. The presence of a wild card team gave it a watered down feeling that did not make it very exciting to me. I know I should have a warm fuzzy feeling because the little team that can in Boston finally won the series, but I didn't because they had to get in through the back door.

[JohnnysGhost]

I am with you on this one Iron-Jaw.I too was a fan in the 1960's..Back then it was winner take all.I cut my b-ball teeth in 1964 as both leagues featured wonderful pennant-races.The Phillies collapse down the stretch still amazes me...And 1967,omg,that remains my favorite yr of all-time.I am not "puting down the WC-format,but"When the Braves won 104,and The Giants win 103,they still get in the tournament,if you get my drift.The "daily drama" isnt there.I remember a day in 67 when the standings changed by the time-zones.Boston might have won East/Det or Minn might have won in Central time zone/Chi mighta won on west coast,it was Outrageous

[64Cards]

So what kind of person is foolish enough to start hurling insults when no one was doing that before?

On the internet they are called trolls.
A TROLL! Now that really hurts!

Cubbie, I guess you've never been to a Card-Cub series, either at Wrigley or Busch. I've been to at least 70 games between the 2 teams and when the fans get together there is a lot of good natured ribbing, ball or chop busting, whatever you want to call it between the fans. It's something big boys do when they are hanging out and what we do is probably very mild compared to the Yanks-Bosox or the old days between Brooklyn and the NY Giants. I was at the incredible game at Wrigley in 84, when Ryne Sandberg twice took Bruce Sutter over the boards. And at Murphy's Bleachers after the game, the Cub fans starting chanting, "SUTTER'S EASY"...to which the Card fans responded with this chant,"1945"

And my feelings weren't hurt about the 2003 WS remark. Hell, we stunk, the Bosox cleaned our clock. I was at game 7 and after the final out I went and congratulated a Red Sox fan. I was happy for their fans, who behaved with total class at our park. But if a Cub fan wants to comment on our failure in a WS, be prepared to have the Cubs rather abysmal record brought up.

Regarding the wildcard, Bob Costas, one of the better minds around suggested this...keep the 3 division format, but have the team with the best record get a bye 1st round. MLB and TV still get 2 rounds of playoffs. But it adds real importance to the regular season. Teams who are running away with a division will still keep going full throttle to get that 1st round bye.

[Appling]

Saddest for me were the Red Sox of 1948 and 1949.
* They lost to the Indians in 1948 in a playoff, after being tied at the end of regular season.
* Then lost to the Yankees in 1949 by one game.

The Red Sox were the highest scoring team in baseball both those seasons, but couldn't get it done at the end.

Of course, the "correct" answer would be any team with a great regular-season record, who then lost a short LCS playoff to a team in the same league with an inferior regular season record. In the "good old days" it was automatic -- the team with the best regular season record always went to the World Series.

[ElHalo]

The point being that what happened in 2004 was one of the all time historical events in baseball history. If you think because one of the teams was a wild card it wasn't an exciting series or that it wasn't memorable, welll then oh well. Your loss, the rest of the baseball world rather liked it.

Speak for yourself.

[Myankee4life]

The Mets humilated one of the greatest teams ever. Here are my list of greatest World series upsets:

1914 Boston Braves vs Philadelphia A's
1906 Chicago White Sox vs Cubs
1969 N.Y. Mets vs Baltimore Orioles
1988 LA Dodgers vs Oakland A's

The biggest upset is no doubt the 60' WS

The Yankees dominated the series and still lost to the Pirates

[Myankee4life]

Well so what if Bobby Thomson's home run never happened? We can marganilize any event in baseball history if we want to.

The point being that what happened in 2004 was one of the all time historical events in baseball history. If you think because one of the teams was a wild card it wasn't an exciting series or that it wasn't memorable, welll then oh well. Your loss, the rest of the baseball world rather liked it.

Speak for yourself

[cubbieinexile]

Hmmm. . . two yankee fans saying they didn't like the 2004 playoffs.

[wamby]

Also a non-Yankee fan.

[RuthMayBond]

A second place team has no business being in the post-season.Yes, in 1994 we could have had "first-place" Texas instead of second-place Astros

[wamby]

Yes, in 1994 we could have had "first-place" Texas instead of second-place Astros

Which is also why there should only be two divisions in each league. I will repeat: second place teams do not belong in the post-season.

[RuthMayBond]

Which is also why there should only be two divisions in each league. I will repeat: second place teams do not belong in the post-season.
1973: Mets but no Dodgers?
1987: Twins but no Blue Jays? Try again :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Bluesteve32]

Regarding the wildcard, Bob Costas, one of the better minds around suggested this...keep the 3 division format, but have the team with the best record get a bye 1st round. MLB and TV still get 2 rounds of playoffs. But it adds real importance to the regular season. Teams who are running away with a division will still keep going full throttle to get that 1st round bye.

That means the team with the best record sit at home a whole week while the other two compete?

This is obviously a non-baseball person thinking of this scheme. The hitters most likely would cool off, their intensity level would be down since the were not playing any meaningful games, you cannot keep intensity by playing with yourself in practice, while you future opponant is playing heated battles for one week. I see the pitchers having a bit of an advantage for a rest for a few days, but they may lose sharpness as well.

As the coaches, managers, and the players how they feel about a bye. I am sure most would say, "NO!"

[RuthMayBond]

That means the team with the best record sit at home a whole week while the other two compete?

This is obviously a non-baseball person thinking of this scheme. The hitters most likely would cool off, their intensity level would be down since the were not playing any meaningful games, you cannot keep intensity by playing with yourself in practice, while you future opponant is playing heated battles for one week. I see the pitchers having a bit of an advantage for a rest for a few days, but they may lose sharpness as well.

As the coaches, managers, and the players how they feel about a bye. I am sure most would say, "NO!"Perhaps, but if you can't keep your intensity during the postseason . . . What about healing from injuries, setting the rotation...?

[wamby]

1973: Mets but no Dodgers?
1987: Twins but no Blue Jays? Try again :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

If it were up to me the the team with the best records in the AL and NL would face each other in the World Series. No DS or LCS. I think the best formula was the one used from 1905 until 1968.

The Mets and Twins teams that you mentioned were not second place teams, although if the 1994 format was in play in 1987, the Twins would not have made the post-season

[Bluesteve32]

Perhaps, but if you can't keep your intensity during the postseason . . . What about healing from injuries, setting the rotation...?

That would be the only thing. I tell you, ask the players, they do not want to sit a week watching the other team play. Timing and sharpness is key in baseball. A week off and it takes a while to get it back, if ever. In football, a week off is not so bad, like the bye week, but anything more than thrre days, timing will be off. Players also lose the routine, and that is key to players during the season.

[Bluesteve32]

If it were up to me the the team with the best records in the AL and NL would face each other in the World Series. No DS or LCS. I think the best formula was the one used from 1905 until 1968.

The Mets and Twins teams that you mentioned were not second place teams, although if the 1994 format was in play in 1987, the Twins would not have made the post-season

When there were eight teams in each league, that worked. After expansion, it really became unweildly. The idea originally was to cut down on travel by playing within your division much more that the other division as well.

Until two teams are added, I really don't see any good solution to the imbalance right now. After two teams are added, each league having four division and only the winners move on would eliminate the wild card.

[cubbieinexile]

Personally I would like to see them moved to 4 8 team divisions with the #1 team for each division going to the playoffs. We rank the 4 division winners according to the amount of wins and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. With the winner of each series facing off in the championship. Furthermore each team in a division would play the other teams in their division 12 times (2 home series and 2 away series) and they would play another division for 2 series each (home and away). All the teams of one division would play all the teams of another division each year on a rotating basis. Division 1 would play Div 2 one year the next year they play Div 3 the next Div 4.

So the schedule would be shortened by 30 games and the season would start May 1st and end in late September, allowing the Playoffs to be wrapped up by mid October.

Of course it will never happen but we are all allowed are fantasies.

[Bluesteve32]

Personally I would like to see them moved to 4 8 team divisions with the #1 team for each division going to the playoffs. We rank the 4 division winners according to the amount of wins and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. With the winner of each series facing off in the championship. Furthermore each team in a division would play the other teams in their division 12 times (2 home series and 2 away series) and they would play another division for 2 series each (home and away). All the teams of one division would play all the teams of another division each year on a rotating basis. Division 1 would play Div 2 one year the next year they play Div 3 the next Div 4.

So the schedule would be shortened by 30 games and the season would start May 1st and end in late September, allowing the Playoffs to be wrapped up by mid October.

Of course it will never happen but we are all allowed are fantasies.

I really don't see the season being shortend, and if it were, it would be only 154 games, to preserve some consistancy. That is how I would seed the four playoff teams in each league as well.

[sschirmer]

There's noway the season will get shortened. The owners need the revenue produced by the extra games.

[Appling]

Personally I would like to see them moved to 4 8 team divisions with the #1 team for each division going to the playoffs. We rank the 4 division winners according to the amount of wins and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. With the winner of each series facing off in the championship.
I agree with much of your concept -- especially with having all teams in a division play the same opponents in any given year. But I don't want to eliminate the distinction of American League vs National League that has stood us so well for over one hundred years. It would also wipe out half of record books (NL record for most team wins or most individual RBI; AL records for same).

[cubbieinexile]

As time goes on and baseball and humans change the records will be ignored or wiped out anyway. Currently for the most part 19th century baseball records are ignored. Sooner or later 20th century records will be ignored in favor of records achieved in a more modern era.

Personally I think the distinction between AL and NL is gone and it is never coming back. Even if we were to end interleague play the two leagues are so connected that besides the DH there really is no difference between the two.

[64Cards]

That means the team with the best record sit at home a whole week while the other two compete?

This is obviously a non-baseball person thinking of this scheme. The hitters most likely would cool off, their intensity level would be down since the were not playing any meaningful games, you cannot keep intensity by playing with yourself in practice, while you future opponant is playing heated battles for one week. I see the pitchers having a bit of an advantage for a rest for a few days, but they may lose sharpness as well.

As the coaches, managers, and the players how they feel about a bye. I am sure most would say, "NO!"
Bluesteve, how can you call Bob Costas a non-baseball person? Read his baseball book, he has put a lot of time and thinking into his ideas on how to improve the game. Whether you agree with him or not, that is up to you.
But Costas knows and loves baseball.

And I would disagree with you how a team would feel about a bye. I think they would love it. First, and most obvious, it means they only have to win one series to get to the WS, which is huge. Too many things can happen in a short series. Next, the team they will play a team that may have had to fight their way through a 5 or 7 game series. Their pitching may be exhausted, they may have had to use their top starter in 3 starts, closer may be worn out. While there is a possibility some players may lose their edge in a week layoff, they can do bp and stay sharp enough for a week. I think the advantages of getting a break after 162 games far outweigh any possible disadvantges.

[sschirmer]

I agree, free agency changed that aspect of the game quite a bit. Guys never used to "jump leagues" the way they can and do today.

[Ubiquitous]

And I would disagree with you how a team would feel about a bye. I think they would love it. First, and most obvious, it means they only have to win one series to get to the WS, which is huge. Too many things can happen in a short series. Next, the team they will play a team that may have had to fight their way through a 5 or 7 game series. Their pitching may be exhausted, they may have had to use their top starter in 3 starts, closer may be worn out. While there is a possibility some players may lose their edge in a week layoff, they can do bp and stay sharp enough for a week. I think the advantages of getting a break after 162 games far outweigh any possible disadvantges.

The downside of a bye and the biggest reason they won't do it is because of the loss of revenue to both MLB and to the #1 seed team.

[64Cards]

The downside of a bye and the biggest reason they won't do it is because of the loss of revenue to both MLB and to the #1 seed team.
Oh yeah, I know they would rather have the dough coming in from 4 1st round playoff series than 2. But as Costas mentioned, and he does know something about the tv business, the networks could care less about the 1st round playoff series, the ratings are usually awful. The NLCS and ALCS do well, if they have teams with national appeal playing and of course the WS usually has good numbers. But part of Bob's argument is that MLB has made the regular season and a great pennant race lose a lot of its relevance, by letting in wild cards. But since they've lucked out getting the Yanks & Bosox going at it the last 2 years in the ALCS, no way they will change. I wouldn't be surprised if FOX would try to get MLB to allow NY & Boston to automatically qualify for post-season every year, let the other 12 AL teams compete for the other 2 spots.
;) ;)

[Ubiquitous]

It wouldn't just be about TV money but also about revenue generated from the stadium and ticket sales.

[Astros4Life]

ive got one...

1998 Houston Astros...102 wins lost 3-1 in the nlds to san diego...we could have beat the braves that year but still would have lost the ws to teh yankees...they were awsom that year

[geezer]

Nobody has mention much the 1954 Cleveland Indians, they won 111 games (an AL record that stood for 44 years until the 1998 Yankees broke, and the latter played 8 games more to break it), Bobby Avila won the batting title with .341, the first latin player to win a batting crown, Larry Doby led the league with 32 HR and 126 RBI, Avila and Al Smith both scored 100 runs, and Doby and Rosen drove in 100 RBI. Both the most important part of that club was the pitching, Hall of Famers Early Wynn and Bob Lemon were tied with a league-leading 23 victories, while Mike Garcia lead the league with a 2.64 ERA and 5 shutouts and won 19 games, while Lemon and Wynn finished 3rd and 4th in ERA respectively. Art Houtteman also won 15 games and Hall of Famer Bob Feller went 13-3 on only 19 starts and Hal Newhouser went 7-2.

In summary the team had 4 pitchers in the Hall o Fame, and also they had Larry Doby and manager Al Lopez, also in Cooperstown.

Sadly, they were swept by the New York Giants, led by Willie Mays, Monte Irvin and Sal Maglie, and were outscored 21-9 in that series, sadly it took 41 year for Cleveland to have another respectable team.

[RuthMayBond]

Nobody has mention much the 1954 Cleveland Indians, they won 111 games (an AL record that stood for 44 years until the 1998 Yankees broke, and the latter played 8 games more to break it), Bobby Avila won the batting title with .341, the first latin player to win a batting crown, Larry Doby led the league with 32 HR and 126 RBI, Avila and Al Smith both scored 100 runs, and Doby and Rosen drove in 100 RBI. Both the most important part of that club was the pitching, Hall of Famers Early Wynn and Bob Lemon were tied with a league-leading 23 victories, while Mike Garcia lead the league with a 2.64 ERA and 5 shutouts and won 19 games, while Lemon and Wynn finished 3rd and 4th in ERA respectively. Art Houtteman also won 15 games and Hall of Famer Bob Feller went 13-3 on only 19 starts and Hal Newhouser went 7-2.

In summary the team had 4 pitchers in the Hall o Fame, and also they had Larry Doby and manager Al Lopez, also in Cooperstown.

Sadly, they were swept by the New York Giants, led by Willie Mays, Monte Irvin and Sal Maglie, and were outscored 21-9 in that series, sadly it took 41 year for Cleveland to have another respectable team.They, uh, went to the World Series

[geezer]

They, uh, went to the World Series

But they didnt win it, but the best baseball team that didnt went to the World Series was the 1998 Braves, the only team in major league history with 5 15-game winners, Tom Glavine was the only pitcher in the league with 20 wins (Won NL Cy Young that year) and finished second in winning percentage, Greg Maddux won 18 and lead the league with a 2.22 ERA, John Smolts led the majors with a winning percentage of .850 (went 17-3 on the season, and was never the starter he was unto last year), Kevin Millwood won 17 games and Denny Neagle had an off year with 16 victories. And their bullpen was great, Kerry Lightenberg saved 30 games, and Mark Wohlers saved another 8.

And their offense was also great, Javy Lopez, Andres Galarraga and Chipper Jones drove in 100 runs, and tha latter 2 also scored 100 runs.

And also the Braves went 106-56 on the season, a franchise best, and led the NL East by a whooping 18 games over the poor Mets.

[wamby]

The biggest upset is no doubt the 60' WS

The Yankees dominated the series and still lost to the Pirates

Wht's interesting is that if you listen to all seven of the 1960 WS ganes, there is very little sense of the Yankees dominating the series. The Yankees only led the series in victories once, when they won game three. At that point there was a sense that they might run away with it, but then they lost the next two. The Yankees had some big innings in the games they won, but in the games they lost, they only took the lead away from the Pirates once, in the eight inning of game seven, but then aided by a freak play they gave up the lead in the bottom of the eighth. It took a boneheaded defensive play by the Pirates in the ninth for the Yankees to tie the score and thus set up Mazeroski's series winning HR.

The Yankees dominated the stats but I think it's a real stretch to say they dominated the Series.

[Myankee4life]

The Yankees dominated the stats but I think it's a real stretch to say they dominated the Series.

Well if you outscore an opponent 55- 27

Outpitch your opponent 3.54 to 7.11

Then I'd reckon to say you dominated the series.

This is a case of the better team losing.

[geezer]

Well if you outscore an opponent 55- 27

Outpitch your opponent 3.54 to 7.11

Then I'd reckon to say you dominated the series.

This is a case of the better team losing.

Not only that, the World Series MVP of that Series was a Yankee, 2B Bobby Richardson that drove in a record 13 runs in a losing effort, by far the only World Series MVP to be selected for the losing team.

[wamby]

Well if you outscore an opponent 55- 27

Outpitch your opponent 3.54 to 7.11

Then I'd reckon to say you dominated the series.

This is a case of the better team losing.

I don't think you can say a team dominated a series when they won three out of seven games.

I'm not sure how a dominating team can be down three games to two, only winning one of three at home. Or how a dominating team can only take the lead away one time in the four games they lose, only to relinquish the lead in the next half-inning. Or how a dominating can not win one of the four close games of the Series. The blowouts look nice on the record sheet but the Pirates did not roll over and die. A dominating team would have seen they did. I don't think you can say the better team lost this series.

Look at this series play-by-play, don't just look at the total stastics. The Yankees did not dominate the Pirates in this Series. The stats are a smokescreen that obscure what was really going on on the field. It's like using Joe Jackson's stats to prove his innocence in the 1919 World Series, you have to look beyond them.

[wamby]

Not only that, the World Series MVP of that Series was a Yankee, 2B Bobby Richardson that drove in a record 13 runs in a losing effort, by far the only World Series MVP to be selected for the losing team.

Several Pirates had a legit claim to be named MVP of the Series including Bill Mazeroski, Roberto Clemente or ElRoy Face.

Unfortuantely for the Yankees, only one of Richardson's RBIs came in a Yankee loss.

[Rome Colonel]

I remember the 1960 Series. I didn't see much of it because I had to go to shool and was on a Boy Scout camping trip over the weekend. However, I heard a good deal of the action via radio and have some clear recollections of how the Series went and how I felt at the time.

After glancing at the line scores to "fine tune" my memory, here are my recollections:

Game 1 - Yankees fell behind in the first 3-1 and couldn't recover, though they scored twice off Face in the 9th before losing 6-4. Well, they'd lost the first two in 1958, so I hardly thought it was the end of the world.

Game 2 - Yankees were ahead 5-1 after five innings, then scored seven runs in the 6th. A laugher that ended 16-3.

Game 3 - Yankees scored six in the 1st and went on to win 10-0. Not quite as big a rout as Thursday's but the Yankees clearly were dominant. At this point things were going about how I'd expected, maybe better.

Game 4 - The Yankees took an early lead then fell behind in the 5th. They closed the gap to a run but Virdon made a great catch to stiffle a Yankee rally. A one-run loss and the Series was even again but the Yankees still seemed to have the upper hand. Looking back this probably was the turning point. After two massive defeats I'd expected Pittsburgh to fold on Sunday but somehow they'd held on.

Game 5 - Back to school on Monday so I didn't see an inning of what probably was the Yankee's weakest performance. But they'd won the last two in Milwaukee so I wasn't giving up, especially with Ford pitching on Wednesday.

Game 6 - This was Columbus Day so there wasn't any school and I got to watch the game and loved every minute of it. The Yankees were up by six after three innings and went on to win 12-0. Finish them off tomorrow.

Game 7 - After falling behind 4-0 the Yankees took a 5-4 lead in the 6th and then scored twice in the top of the 8th. I was listening in school at the end of the day (we had home room the last 30 minutes) and I left thinking that those two runs were just icing on the cake. I thought it was all over. I had to go to a doctor's appointment after school and by the time I got there it was over. Only later did I hear that the Pirates had started their come back in the 8th after a double play ball had hit Kubek in the throat and opened the gates for a five run rally.

I couldn't believe it. This was much harder to accept than 1957, when the Yankees had lost the last game 5-0. This one was in the bag at 3pm EDT. How could it have ended so differently 40 minutes later?

If I had one consolation it was that Richardson won the MVP. I have to think now that the choice was the writers' way of acknowledging that the better, more dominant team had not won.

Face? Three saves but an ERA over 5. Clemente? Nine hits but only 3 RBI's to Richardson's 12 (which I believe tied a record; another reason he won the award). Maz? Well, perhaps Maz would have won the award today. We're in a completely different media environment and honors almost always go to someone on the winning team, especially if they do something as dramatic as hitting that homer, though as his slugging percentage was .640, he certainly had a good case overall.

So to recap, of seven games the Yankees pretty much won two in the first three innings, won a third game before the end of the 6th inning, and led in two other games, one of which they were up by three runs going into the bottom of the 8th.

The Yankees totally dominated the games they won, led in every game except the fifth, and could have won any of the games they lost. If they weren't "dominant" they certainly seemed stronger. That's how it seemed to me then and how it seems to me now.

If only Stengel had gone with Ford instead of Ditmar to start the Series, but that's another story.