The should/shouldn't point got me thinking. Baseball history is full of legendary teams who won a series or two to enter the pantheon. The 1998 Yankees are the only undisputed entry into that group from the Wildcard Era. (17/22 Astros were great but tainted, 18 Red Sox same to a lesser degree, Giants even-year dynasty averaged 91.3 wins, 20 Dodgers got 60 games not 162, 16 Cubs fell short of dynastic expectations). The modern playoff setup gives us great drama. But it fights against ingrained perceptions in the sport that the best teams *should* win the World Series to cement their greatness. Maybe baseball fans simultaneously get that the sport is chaotic but also (subconsciously?) expect outcomes that the current system isn't built to produce.
And perhaps these results create a little doubt about those past legendary teams? Would they have made it through the expanded playoff gauntlet?
Totally agree, Scott. I think it's fair to say that we end up with more 2001 Mariners than we used to. I can't speak to how everyone else feels about those 2010s Giants squads, but I'd have no qualms about labeling them a great team. They did enough to make it, and they were always ready when they got there (as long as the year ended in a multiple of 2, that is). Would any more recent Dodgers fans want to trade places? I don't know, I just feel like last year's World Series matchup, which I take to be an outlier, made for a whole lot of hyperbole around bad teams getting through when I continue to think this has more to do with good teams playing poorly. The Dodgers have new opportunities to shed that reputation, but there comes a point where we can't call it the system's fault anymore. That's not why the Phillies scored 12 runs in the NLDS, 7 of them in one game, you know?
The should/shouldn't point got me thinking. Baseball history is full of legendary teams who won a series or two to enter the pantheon. The 1998 Yankees are the only undisputed entry into that group from the Wildcard Era. (17/22 Astros were great but tainted, 18 Red Sox same to a lesser degree, Giants even-year dynasty averaged 91.3 wins, 20 Dodgers got 60 games not 162, 16 Cubs fell short of dynastic expectations). The modern playoff setup gives us great drama. But it fights against ingrained perceptions in the sport that the best teams *should* win the World Series to cement their greatness. Maybe baseball fans simultaneously get that the sport is chaotic but also (subconsciously?) expect outcomes that the current system isn't built to produce.
And perhaps these results create a little doubt about those past legendary teams? Would they have made it through the expanded playoff gauntlet?
Totally agree, Scott. I think it's fair to say that we end up with more 2001 Mariners than we used to. I can't speak to how everyone else feels about those 2010s Giants squads, but I'd have no qualms about labeling them a great team. They did enough to make it, and they were always ready when they got there (as long as the year ended in a multiple of 2, that is). Would any more recent Dodgers fans want to trade places? I don't know, I just feel like last year's World Series matchup, which I take to be an outlier, made for a whole lot of hyperbole around bad teams getting through when I continue to think this has more to do with good teams playing poorly. The Dodgers have new opportunities to shed that reputation, but there comes a point where we can't call it the system's fault anymore. That's not why the Phillies scored 12 runs in the NLDS, 7 of them in one game, you know?
Yep, totally agree
Glad to hear it Austin! Thanks for reading.