By In Stuff

There’s Only One October

Detroit beating the Yankees surprised me. St. Louis beating Philadelphia stunned me — or stunned me as much as any best-of-five game baseball series could. Once again, the teams with the best records in each league will NOT appear in the World Series.

Take a look:

Best records: Yankees vs. Phillies
World Series: TBD (but not Yankees vs. Phillies).

Best records: Rays vs. Phillies
World Series: Rangers vs. Giants

Best records: Yankees vs. Dodgers
World Series: Yankees vs. Phillies

Best records: Angels vs. Cubs
World Series: Rays vs. Phillies

Best records: Red Sox or Indians vs. Diamondbacks
World Series: Red Sox vs. Rockies

Best records: Yankees vs. Mets
World Series: Tigers vs. Cardinals

Best records: White Sox vs. Cardinals
World Series: White Sox vs. Astros

Best records: Yankees vs. Cardinals
World Series: Red Sox vs. Cardinals

Best records: Yankees vs. Braves
World Series: Yankees vs. Marlins

Best records: Yankees or A’s vs. Braves
World Series: Angels vs. Giants

Best records: Mariners vs. Astros or Cardinals
World Series: Yankees. vs. Diamondbacks

Best records: White Sox vs. Giants
World Series: Yankees vs. Mets

Best records: Yankees vs. Braves
World Series: Yankees vs. Braves

So you see, I have to go back to 1999 to find the two teams with the league’s best records actually playing in the World Series. Most years — like this year — NEITHER of the teams with the best record play in the World Series.

I’ve written about this before, but the system a sports league uses to determine a champion basically tells you exactly what the people in charge treasure. For instance, the NBA — back when they actually played NBA basketball — treasures playoff basketball. They believe, and I think they’re right, that the best and most exciting way to find the best team is with a sequence of heated, intense playoff series. Everything the league does points to that. The regular season is like an orchestra tuning up (with scantily clad dancers!). And most basketball fans would agree that the system works, the playoffs tend to shine bright lights on the best players, expose the flawed teams, reveal the very best teams. Hockey, if anything, is even more like that. Fans love playoff hockey.*

*I’m making a commitment — based on numerous requests and the likelihood of a prolonged NBA lockout/strike/whatever — to get back into hockey this year. I’ll be asking for your help.

The NFL as a league treasures one game playoffs in the chill of winter. And fans of the NFL generally feel the same way, we feel that while one game might not always go to the better team, well, that’s part of the NFL’s theme, that you don’t have to be the better team, you just have to be the better team THAT DAY, you know, the whole “Any Given Sunday” motif.

It’s good when the things the leagues cherish and the things that the fans cherish are well matched. I think March Madness is a perfect connection between what the schools and players want and what the fans want — wild, unpredictable, exciting, emotional, madness. But then you look at college football. The BCS system cherishes, well, bluntly, it’s hard to tell. Heck, it changes every year. It cherishes scheduling? It cherishes running up the score? It cherishes big conferences? It cherishes bowl games? It cherishes undefeated records no matter the schedule? The system mainly seems to be in place to protect the status quo, for numerous reasons, some of them high minded, I suppose, many of them unseemly. But whatever the BCS system cherishes, it is completely out of tune with what most fans want, and so every year we get rage and fury about the system. On the other hand, college football also has never been more popular, so while their may be surface rage, it’s not like people stop watching.

Baseball is in a weird place because it is different from every other sport. Only baseball has teams play 162 regular season games. That, as you know, is twice as many as the NBA and hockey, four times as many as they play in the Premier League, 10 times as many as they play in the NFL. By playing a season that long, baseball seems to be saying that the way to find the best team is through the long season, the day-to-day, the ability to overcome injuries, adversity, slumps, heat waves and all that. And for many, many years that was precisely the case. The best teams in each league played in the World Series. Then, when the league expanded, the best teams in the two league divisions would play off for the right to play in the World Series. The postseason mattered, certainly, it mattered a lot, but the season itself mattered even more.

But ever since the addition of the wild card, the postseason has become the dominant story. You’ve seen this, I assume:

World Series Champs:
2010: Giants (5th best record in baseball)
2009: Yankees (best record)
2008: Phillies (5th best)
2007: Red Sox (tied for best)
2006: Cardinals (13th best)
2005: White Sox (2nd best)
2004: Red Sox (3rd best)
2003: Marlins (7th best)
2002: Angels (4th best)
2001: Diamondbacks (6th best)
2000: Yankees (9th best)
1999: Yankees (3rd best)
1998: Yankees (best record)
1997: Marlins (4th best)
1996: Yankees (3rd best)
1995: Braves (2nd best)

So, since the wildcard was introduced, only the Yankees in 1998 and 2009 won with the best record in baseball. The Red Sox were tied with Cleveland for the best in 2007 and beat Cleveland in a playoff series, so I think you can count that too. Beyond that, only the White Sox in 2005 and Braves in 1995 even had the SECOND best record. The average for a World Series winner is somewhere between fourth and fifth best record. And with the two best records in baseball out this year, that average should stay pretty much intact.

I’m not saying this is wrong. I’m just saying that the entire emphasis of baseball excellence has shifted. The 162-game season has shifted from feature to opening act. Baseball used to be about winning pennants. Now it’s about getting into the playoffs and taking your chances. Heck, you can hear it in the Moneyball arguments that are being thrown around again because of the release of the movie. Critics of Beane’s Oakland A’s teams shout that they didn’t win anything. And when you consider the playoffs, that’s right. But the A’s averaged 100 victories a season from 2001-2003. There have not been many teams in baseball history that have averaged 100 wins a season over three years.They did win SOMETHING, for crying out loud.*

*Another thing I keep hearing people say is that the A’s got nothing out of the draft that was a centerpiece of the Moneyball book. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they draft Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton, Mark Teahen and Brad Ziegler that year? I think to rip Oakland for that draft is to have a basic misunderstanding about how the baseball draft works. The Cubs, just as a for instance, have gone multiple years in a row without drafting even a single player as good as Mark Teahen. Yes, 35th overall pick Jeremy Brown flopped. Guess what: The 35th pick in the draft almost always flops.

Before the expanded playoffs, baseball unquestionably lacked unpredictability. Between 1936 and 1965, the Yankees won 16 World Series — more than half. They appeared in six other World Series. Adding the League Championship Series in 1969 created a new layer of volatility. We had mini-dynasties — the early 1970s A’s, the Big Red Machine, the Bronx Zoo Yankees — but in the 1980s a different team won the World Series every year.

Adding another division and the wildcard in the 1995 created a whole new thing. For a short while, it looked like the system would perfectly suit the Yankees — who won four World Series between 1996 and 2000, even though they only had the best record in the American League twice during that stretch and were stunningly mediocre in 2000 with only 87 wins before beating Moneyball, Mariners and Mets on a magical playoff run.

But ever since then, the quirks and erratic nature of short playoff series has mostly muted the Yankees gigantic payroll and their cavalcade of stars. They’ve had the league’s best record six times since 2002, but have only appeared in the World Series twice, and only won the World Series once. I, of course, feel no sympathy for the Yankees whatsoever. But I do think it’s true that baseball’s system was once built around trying to find the best team. And now the system is built much more around the spark of surprise.

Look: I love baseball. This is what baseball is in the new age, and so I love it. Unless the Cardinals win this year, we will have a different World Series winner for seven consecutive seasons. In this system, the White Sox won for the first time since the Black Sox, the Red Sox broke their curse, the Giants finally won in San Francisco and so on. Next year, they will probably add another wild card, making the thing even more unpredictable and crazy and less about finding the best team. I don’t think that fits in baseball grand history. But it’s fun to be surprised. Heck, maybe even the Cubs will win it all.*

*A lot more on the Cubs coming next week.

39 Responses to There’s Only One October

  1. Slimchicken says:

    Never seen it broken out like this. Thanks. The last thing I’d like to see is the MLB season go on longer, but I’d be much more comfortable with the increased emphasis on the playoffs if they extended the first round to seven games. To me the perfect compromise between the old and new is to reduce the season to 156 games and expand the first round to best of seven.

  2. musial6 says:

    My solution is to eliminate the divisions, give the NL and AL pennants to the teams with the best regular season record, and use an interleague playoff format like this

  3. Howie H says:

    It would be interesting to see if you applied the won-loss records of say the last third of the season or last 50 games, to see how the teams with the best records over that time period fared.

  4. pgaskill says:


    Actually, in the 1980s, a different team won the *pennant* every year, not just the World Series. The first repeat pennant-winner didn’t happen until 1989. (And the run actually started in ’79. So for ten straight years, no repeat pennant winners.)

    Also, you don’t point out how MANY wildcard teams have made it to the Series:

    ’97, Marlins, won
    ’00, Mets, lost
    ’02, Angels AND Giants, Angels won
    ’03, Marlins, won
    ’04, Red Sox, won
    ’05, Astros, lost
    ’06, Tigers, lost
    ’07, Rockies, lost

    For any kind of a purist, traditionalist, or sentimentalist, this is ugly.

  5. surfmonkey89 says:

    I would argue that the BCS cherishes the *appearance* of tradition, in order to maintain the status quo financially.

    The fans love the tradition, but are smart enough to realize that time marches on.

    Who are we kidding here? The BCS is 10-15 universities that want to keep the money train all for themselves, nothing more. Everyone sees right through it.

  6. Brad says:

    One of the reasons the Cubs have not won in over one hundred years is purely statistical. As the league has expanded, their odds of winning have dramatically decreased each year. It doesn’t mean they haven’t been run poorly, but what it does mean is that you have to be consistently good if you want to overcome the long odds of winning a WS title. The Cubs aren’t the only team with a low WS title% over the last 100 years.

  7. Mark Daniel says:

    Baseball had to expand the playoffs just to make the sport retain some sense of fairness. With payroll disparity the way it is, opening up the playoffs to more teams simply gives lower payroll teams a chance.

    So while the wild card sort of defeats the purpose of playing 162 games in the regular season, payroll disparity destroys the concept of fair competition, so it all evens out in the end.

    And, thankfully, for the rest of the postseason I won’t be listening to how much more the Phillies or Yankees spent than their competition.

  8. JHitts says:

    Doesn’t the fact that we now play unbalanced schedules factor into this? Teams don’t play other teams the same amount of times so it really is difficult to say that the Phillies were “better” than the Brewers over the course of 162 games. Or, in the AL, it’s even harder to tell… all three division champs were separated by 3 games, total.

  9. Hmm, the forum i hang out in has it different, the NBA fans would like their playoffs to be altered or the season shortened because it is a snoozer. This is why i support making the LDS best of 7 instead of adding mediocre teams where they don’t belong. Getting hot at the right time is what it’s about, but less people would hopefully complain if the Cards and Tigers still had to win one more game. They can add doubleheaders to the season again to end it earlier and not have the WS go into November.
    Oddly my family members do still watch NCAAF even when USC can’t even play in a bowl game, but for myself i am a boycotting all of it.

  10. Jared says:

    I agree with Mark and JHitts.

  11. pgaskill says:

    > Getting hot at the right time is what it’s about

    Yeah, but that’s always applied to the World Series; it’s just that now it applies to more than just the Series. Look at how many times the perceptibly weaker team won the World Series, back in the 1903-1968 time period.

  12. NMark W says:

    While I know that a 7-game series is much more likely to lean to the favored team than the now used 5 game series in the current LDS format, I like the 5 game series for the heightened drama. Of course, as a Pirate fan I haven’t had to face the loss in a 5 game playoff since 1972 vs the Redlegs and that sucked all winter – and still stings to this day, so I know how the Phillies and Yankee fans must be feeling. But, since we are now talking about huge 2011 payroll ballclubs, I’m rather pleased with the outcomes of the past two days!

  13. Sean says:

    Great post Joe but one small correction, the Dodgers won the World Series in both 1981 and 1988. Dodgers fans have been tortured recently, so we have to live off the past.

    With regards to the comment about the wild card adding fairness, it really has just given the big market teams a second chance at making the playoffs. In the American League, most years it is the Yankees or Red Sox taking that spot and in the National League the Mets, Dodgers and Astros have each won the wild card a couple of times. So, I don’t really think it has served the purpose of giving small market teams a better chance.

  14. Mike says:

    You mentioned the premier league. In the premier league, they recognize both the regular season champion and he winner of the FA Cup tournament. The best teams pull a “double” by winning both

    I wonder if baseball should do the same thing. Give the NL and AL championship trophies to the team with the best record in the regular season ad treat the playoffs like a tournament. Then winning the “double” — having the best record and winning he World Series — would be a mark of a truly great team. ’98 Yanks, ’07 Sox, ’09 Yanks. If you wat to expand that to having best record in your league, you’d have ’95 Braves, 98-99 Yankes, ’05 White Sox, ’07 Red Sox,’09 Yankees.

  15. pgaskill says:

    Here are all the Wild Cards:

    95 Yankees, Rockies
    96 Orioles, Dodgers
    97 Yankees, Marlins
    98 Red Sox, Cubs
    99 Red Sox, Mets
    00 Mariners, Mets
    01 A’s, Cardinals
    02 Angels, Giants
    03 Red Sox, Marlins
    04 Red Sox, Astros
    05 Red Sox, Astros
    06 Tigers, Dodgers
    07 Yankees, Rockies
    08 Red Sox, Brewers
    09 Red Sox, Rockies
    10 Yankees, Braves
    11 Rays, Cardinals

    So it looks like Sean was right.

  16. daveyhead says:

    Joe, love to see you opine on what would have happened if Ryan Howard had hit the ball out of the park instead of grounding out to end the game. Would there ever have been an ending like that in sports history?

  17. musial6 says:

    The Wild Card/6 division realignment was implemented in order to keep more big market teams in the postseason hunt late in the year, and into the playoffs. There’s a reason the NYC/LA/Chicago teams are split and it has nothing to do with tradition – it’s all about maximizing interest in the sport in the power markets. Teams that consistently qualify for postseason get all that extra TV/gate revenue, and thus are able to have higher payrolls, which if spent wisely enables them to perpetuate their advantage. There is still no cure for an incompetent/corrupt front office however, as evidenced by the Cubs, Mets, Dodgers, and Astros…

  18. Omniart says:

    Perhaps it’s the Cubs fan in me, but I always thought of October baseball as the frosting on the cake or as the very best of exhibition games. Five and seven game series tell us almost nothing about the quality of a baseball team.

    I wish that knowledgeable baseball fans and writers would treat the playoffs as they do RBIs. In my book, the best team of the previous decade was the 2001 Mariners: winning 116 is far more difficult than winning a World Series. In my book, the Yankees and Phillies are the 2011 AL and NL Champions. If only the players on those two teams, just for kicks, got together for a seven-game exhibition series . . .

  19. I think the main thing the the Phillies should focus on next year is NOT having the most wins in the NL. Because then they will get to the World Series. If they do have the most wins again, they won’t go to the World Series. It’s a simple formula.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Unsaid in Joe’s OP and in the comments here is this: Baseball doesn’t worship its yearly champions the way all the other sports (especially football) do. It’s clear that the biggest day of the NFL year is Super Bowl Sunday. Baseball’s biggest day of the year is Opening Day. Baseball fans cherish the game, the freedom of summer, and the joy of being outdoors. The World Series means those things are all at an end. In fact, the LDSs, LCSs, and the Series are all afterthoughts. They’re overshadowed by the NFL season which is just slipping into high gear around that time. Pro football fans, though, can’t wait for the Super Bowl. It means the long, hard winter is just about over and the grueling season, the hurts, the 20-hour days for the coaches, and the devastating injuries can be justified because the players on the field will now fight for the biggest prize in American sports. Baseball treasures the process; football the result.

  22. daveyhead: Joe, love to see you opine on what would have happened if Ryan Howard had hit the ball out of the park instead of grounding out to end the game. Would there ever have been an ending like that in sports history?

    Me: The Cardinals would have carried him around the bases like in that famous softball moment of 2008 where the girl hit the championship winning homer, somehow broke her leg (or something severe) while rounding first, and was carried to each base by the opposing team. Except in Howard’s case, it would be stranger, epic, difficult. Guys would have to stop and take turns. It would take twenty minutes.

    Mostly I just wanted to comment on that moment. It was so weird. They’re clearly still a great team, but I couldn’t help feeling that that groundout/bizarre injury was the end of the Phillies’ recent dominance. They still have their ace hydra, but that window won’t stay open much longer.

  23. rokirovka says:

    Just for the record, in the 4-division era 1969-1993 the team with the best record in baseball only won the World Series 7 times in 25 seasons: ’70 Orioles, ’75-’76 Big Red Machine, ’78 Yankees, ’84 Tigers, ’86 Mets, ’89 A’s.

  24. pgaskill says:

    And in the 1903-1968 (non-playoff) years, the following best records won the Series:

    03 Red Sox
    (04 no series)
    05 Giants
    07 Cubs
    08 Cubs
    09 Pirates
    11 A’s
    12 Red Sox
    15 Red Sox
    17 White Sox
    19 Reds
    20 Indians
    23 Yankees
    27 Yankees
    28 Yankees
    29 A’s
    30 A’s
    32 Yankees
    36 Yankees
    37 Yankees
    38 Yankees
    39 Yankees
    40 Reds
    41 Yankees
    42 Cards
    44 Cards
    47 Yankees
    48 Indians
    49 Tie for best record, first time it had happened (Yanks beat Dodgers)
    50 Yankees
    51 Yankees
    55 Dodgers
    56 Yankees
    58 Tie (Yanks beat Braves)
    61 Yankees
    66 Orioles
    67 Cards
    68 Tigers

    So, the team with the best regular-season record in the majors won 35 of those 65 Series (by my manual count; YMMV), with another two winners (and two losers too) being tied for the best record. That’s a higher percentage that in the playoff era, but it’s still not as many as *I*, at least, would have expected.

  25. JG in MO says:

    Had a longer version of this, hard to decide what’s more frustrating, my inability to post on this site (user error?) or spending 20 minutes composing with nothing to show for it.

    Joe and other Brilliant Readers may be oversimplifying what it means that the “best” team emerge. The Phillies were almost certainly the best in the NL through much of the season. But the Brewers found their chemistry and I think eclipsed them in the 2nd half. And the Cards added key pieces down the stretch to become the “best” in the last 45 days. The Phillies tried to keep pace adding Pence, but clearly overestimated their rapidly aging core (Utley, Ibanez, Howard).

    Once one concedes there may be several “bests,” how better to select from among them than by head-to-head competition in an appropriate format? What’s the alternative? Return to the season-long march to a pennant, and obliterate any reason for mid-season corrections, momentum swings and drama?

    I think MLB is on the right track.

  26. Kansas City says:

    The cite below is a very smart discussion about the element of luck in a short post season series, with the conclusion that statistically the team with the best regular season record is likely to have no better than about a 25% chance of winning the World Series and the Phillies had only about a 60% chance of beating the Cardinals (it is a good site, although devoted to the Yankees– “It’s About the Money.”

    As I watched the end of the Yankee/Tiger game, it occurred to me that it may have represented that the steroid period is over. 38 year old Jeter could not get the ball over the fence (with roids, he would have), 36 year old A-Roid looked overmatched at the plate, and the premier Tiger closer was throwing 94-95 (instead of 99). I’m not suggesting Jeter ever took steroids; I just use him as an example of how a 38 year old player on steroid likely would have got that ball over the fence in right field).

  27. Ebessan says:

    “You mentioned the premier league. In the premier league, they recognize both the regular season champion and he winner of the FA Cup tournament. The best teams pull a “double” by winning both”

    And the League Cup, about which nobody really cares, but is still a tangible win. Plus Europe. There’s a lot to win in soccer.

  28. nettles9 says:

    My thought was always that with the expansion of the league and the stunning success of the NFL, MLB wanted some of that popularity (popularity, in this case, equals money). They wildcard was instituted to give baseball more of a football feel, and to bring more popularity (a.k.a. dollars).

    I’m sorry for sounding so cynical and such, but it’s about making as much money as you can. That is fine since we are a capitalist nation. I will be surprised a little with the addition of an extra wildcard team because, with a one-game playoff, only one team will get the coveted home playoff game. How will they appease the road team in the one-game playoff?

    If there are any double-headers, they will be of the day/night variety, where one would have to pay for both games.

    Follow the money.

  29. Kyle M says:

    Joe, you point out that this new format brought championships to the White Sox, Red Sox, and Giants. But that doesn’t really show any relative merit of the system, because it very well could have happened under the old no-league-playoff format: the White Sox and the Giants would have played against each in 2000, for example. Heck, if we used the old system the Indians and Cubs would have had a lot more chances.

    If we used the old format I think we’d have a lot fewer “curses” to talk about.

  30. pgaskill says:

    > How will they appease the road team in the one-game playoff?

    Appease? That team will be a team that previously wouldn’t have been in the playoffs at all. Appease for what? They’re being given a chance to win the World Series, a chance they wouldn’t have had under the current format.

    Assuming that there’s any meaning, any statistical validity, and also any “fairness” to a short playoff series, then one could say that if they want to cash in on this newfound chance to win the World Series, they need to begin by winning one game on the road. So? Would *you* sneer at that chance? Would *you* feel in need of appeasement? 😉

  31. pgaskill says:

    Clarification: What I meant by the first sentence of my last paragraph was:

    If it were true (and we, or at least Bud, sort of have to “pretend” that it is, or we, or at least Bud, wouldn’t put any weight on playoff results and it wouldn’t make the WS winner the best team in baseball): ahem, *if* it were true that the results of short series weren’t essentially crapshoots, then any team that thinks it’s “good” enough to win the WS *should* be able to win one little game on the road, no? Just ask Joe Morgan. . . .

  32. Tampa Mike says:

    As much as people complain about 5 game playoff series, I don’t know how people haven’t gone ballistic about the idea of adding a 2nd wild card team and having a one game playoff. That is just ludicrous to me. When teams are tied it sucks, but a one game playoff is really the only feasible way to break the tie. I don’t get why they would willingly do this every year.

  33. pgaskill says:

    It’s a way of (a) getting one more team into the postseason picture and (b) making more money, both for any additional games on TV and for the increased attendance at games due to the increased excitement, while (c) punishing the wildcard teams for not winning their divisions by making an early ignominious exit a distinct possibility for both of them while (d) not lengthening the season unduly–in fact, possibly not at all.

  34. scorptilicus says:

    I enjoy the surprise. Maybe it’s because by the time I started following sports the wild card was well established and compared to the other three major American sports, eight teams in a playoff is low, but I like the fact that we so often get two different teams each year. It’s what some fans find appealing about football, that idea that any team can rise that year and go to the Super Bowl.

    Funny enough, though, it’s baseball that has more deviation in its champions. Looking at that list, it looks like from 2001-2010, the only team to win twice was Boston. Contrast that with football, where both the Pats and Steelers have multiple championships. And yes, being a Royals fan like I am (or an Orioles fan. Or Pirates. Or Blue Jays. Or Nationals.) can feel like they’ll never break through, but even teams that have been bad for years seems to be making runs lately. The Rays and Rangers made the World Series. How many years did the Rockies stink before they did so in ’07? Or the Padres before they just missed the playoffs last year? Perhaps baseball has lost something in a time where pennant race has been replaced by wild card race and division race. But I think the possibility, for me anyway, adds enough to make up for it.

  35. brhalbleib says:

    Bah, if you have a WS at all, sometimes the best team isn’t going to emerge. In 1954, the Giants would have finished 3rd in the American League, yet they swept the Indians in the WS. Did the better team win? Probably not.

    In 1914, the Braves were clearly inferior to the A’s, not only by record (94 wins to 99), but by a review of their rosters. Not only are the A’s chock full of HOFers (Baker, Collins, Plank, Bender, Pennock), but two of their players were probably the best at their position in the first fifty years of the 20th century (Collins, Baker) and one of them is possibly still the best at his position (Collins). Meanwhile, the Braves had 2 HOFers (Evers, Maranville), who are considered two of the weaker members of the Hall. If ever there was a mismatch, this was it.

    And yet, the Braves swept them. And I, for one, am glad they did so.

  36. Matt says:

    Note that the A’s did not sign Brad Ziegler out of the 2002 draft. He returned to Southwest Missouri State for the 2003 season, after which the Phillies signed him as 20th-round pick.

    However, the A’s do receive credit for signing Ziegler out of the Northern League in 2004 and converting him to a submarine reliever.

    Philadelphia released him in spring training 2004, after all of 3 games the previous year.

    Don’t mean to be a stickler, but for the greatness that is Baseball-Reference, their draft resources do not distinguish between signed and unsigned picks.

  37. I used to love columns like these. Then, I learned about the binomial theorem, and realized that best v. best almost never happens.

  38. pgaskill says:


    If you look at the ’54 Indians’ and Giants’ APBA cards, you wonder how in the hell the Indians even finished in the first division. The Giants look like the better team by a mile and a half.

    Now, of course, if you consider the ’54 NL to be only half or two thirds as strong as the AL, then you can use that to say the Indians were better. But they look, on paper, like a pretty weak pennant-winner. Not like a last-place team or anything, but not at *all* like a team that’s just set a new AL record for wins.

  39. sellrsgold says:

    I did before adore tips such as these. After that, My spouse and i found out about the actual binomial theorem, along with remarked that finest sixth is v. greatest hardly ever happens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *