Eliminated

[Elster88]

The Indians lost the first of a double-header and the Astros won. The Indians are done.

9/30	9/29	9/28
9/28	9/27	9/27	9/26	9/26
9/26	9/20	9/19	9/18	9/13
9/13	9/12	9/11	9/10	9/9

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Giants being eliminated ensures that MLB will have its 15th consecutive year without a repeat champion, something that has never happened before. The previous record had been the 14-year streak from 1979 until 1992. I tend to think this is more fluke than some sort of proof that parity nirvana has been achieved even though I'm sure this is going to be touted in places as just that (it's a prominent story on the MLB site). This span, after all, does have two 3-time champs (Giants & BoSox) and one 2-timer (Cards) meaning that three teams have won more than half of the championships during these years. But, in general, I think MLB is in a good place as far as competitive balance goes. Certainly much better than the 15 year span that preceded this latest one when a huge explosion for certain markets in local media money made the income gap between teams so lopsided that it was as if some teams weren't playing by the same rules as others. Things are also a lot more balanced now as compared to the so-called 'golden age' of the sport which only seemed to be golden for those who lived in NYC but not so much for anyone else.

I don't think it's a fluke. Quite the opposite, what surpises me is that there are two recent three time champs. Expanded baseball playoffs, to me, means that teams no longer have to assemble, on paper, dominant squads to have the same chance that they once needed to win the crown.

I don't think it's a question of parity, either. There might very well as many dominant teams out there as there ever was. But there's so much luck in baseball that, coupled with more playoffs teams, the best team is less likelier to take home the crown.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't think it's a fluke. Quite the opposite, what surpises me is that there are two recent three time champs.

But that's the part I'm calling a fluke -- or at least something more towards the fluke-ish-y end of the spectrum.
That the last 15 championships (actually 14 + this coming one which has yet to be decided) have been won by only 9 different franchises [due to the Giants x 3, BoSox x 3, and StL x 2] and yet have done so without a back-to-back winner is more fluke than it is an example of how MLB is in the midst of a never seen era of parity.
Having said all that, I do happen to think that MLB IS in an era where there's more of what folks like to call parity as compared to most eras in its history, I just don't think the statistical oddity of 'setting a record' for the longest time with no b-t-b winners is proof of it even though it's sure to be cited as just that in some quarters.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Having said all that, I do happen to think that MLB IS in an era where there's more of what folks like to call parity as compared to most eras in its history, I just don't think the statistical oddity of 'setting a record' for the longest time with no b-t-b winners is proof of it even though it's sure to be cited as just that in some quarters.

I sort of agree. I don't necessarily agree that we're in a parity era. But I agree that counting the number of different WS champions in x number of years wouldn't be the best way to determine the level of parity. Frankly, I'm really astonished at the current number of -- not repeat champs -- but frequent champs. I figured to myself as soon as baseball expanded the playoffs more than 20 years ago that having repeat WS champs would be a much rarer feat. I also figured that in my lifetime, I'd never see a team win three in a row anymore -- difficult enough even before the wild card era. The Yankees proved me wrong on that one and to this day, I'm still stupefied by that accomplishment.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Guest

[Ceetar]

Well, adding the third division helps the dominant teams. You only need to be better than 4 teams to consistently make the playoffs and as long as you've got at least a few good players you've got a chance.

Hell, the Mets could be headed for a situation like that, depending on how the Nats go this offseason.

Of course, the greatest argument for baseball parity is that the game has a lot of luck in it to begin with, and pitchers especially ebb and flow and break all the time.

Also the recent change hasn't really made it any harder for a dominant team to dominate. I actually kind of like it the way it is now. I favor expansion too, but I don't think I'd want to see 4 divisions of 4. Not sure I'd like 2 division of 8 either.

[Elster88]

Twins lost yesterday.

10/3	9/30	9/29	9/28
9/28	9/27	9/27	9/26	9/26
9/26	9/20	9/19	9/18	9/13
9/13	9/12	9/11	9/10	9/9