batmagadanleadoff

=whippoorwill post_id=24336 time=1570931637 user_id=79] I thought it was for kids in a hospital

Frayed Knot wrote: btw, should the Yanx get eliminated in this series, this decade (2010-19) would represent the only one of the last ten with no MFY appearance in a World Series (last appearance/win = 2009) and also the second in the last ten with no MFY WS win (the 1980s saw only their 1981 loss to LAD in six games) That's great. The Yankees win the pennant at least once a decade and for the Mets, it's two first place finishes in 31 seasons. You know what? I'm rooting for the Yankees. Because fuck the Wilpons. They should be tarred and feathered and chased out of town at torchlight by crazed villagers, like in Frankenstein.

Edgy MD wrote: The coup de grace is the IDEAL logo. Gotta say, that 32" waist limit is a kick in the nuts. [YOUTUBE]5AV1OsBJmss[/YOUTUBE] The Golden Age of The Simpsons - Bill Clinton's first term. That's just awesome.

Ok. Let's go to numbers. I don't know that your point about multiple teams and only one champion being crowned is correct. I'll have to think that through. Maybe I've oversimplified, but there has to be some way to weight the fact that there have been 14 80 win WC's and only 6 100 game winners, but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. My way is the right way. Suppose that in this year's postseason, all eight playoff teams, (ten if you count the WC game losers, but let's use eight for simplicity's sake, As you'll see, it doesn't matter if we use eight or ten) won at least 100 games during the regular season. This means that the WS winner will be guaranteed to have won at least 100 games during the regular season since all the playoff teams are 100-something win teams. So would you then say that the conversion rate of 100-something win teams is one out of eight and that 100-something win teams fail to win a WS 87.5% of the time? It's illogical. Ok. Let's go to numbers. ... but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. In that same era, there were three years where there were 100 win teams. 2016-2018. In each of those years, the champion was a 100 game winner. Your numbers: 80something Win WC: 20% 100 Win Team: 100% But you're now cherry-picking the data to come up with numbers that support your opinion. This reminds me about the discussions here on retiring Gary Carter's uniform number, when Carter's fans would come up with "rules" for retiring a Mets number that weren't well thought out and actually, quite terrible. But Gary Carter met the criteria for those rules and that was all that mattered, because Carter's proponents first decided that Carter's number should be retired and so then came up with lame requirements that Carter was guaranteed to meet. So you'd hear shit like "Carter caught all of the post-season innings" as if suddenly, catching all the post-season innings merited a uniform # retirement. Or the contrived rule, specifically crafted for Carter, and also designed to keep out the likes of Warren Spahn, that any Hall of Famer who spent a nice chunk of his career with the Mets, never mind on what the hell "nice chunk" even means, should have his Mets # retired. That's a bad rule, first of all, because most rules here are dumb since a # retirement deserves a case by case individual assessment. And mainly, because that rule, which was retro-fitted and reverse engineered solely to ensure Carter's # retirement would prevent the retirement of David Wright's #, and Wright deserves a Mets # retirement more so than any other Met that hasn't yet had his # retired. The rule would also practically require that the Mets retire Nolan Ryan's #, which would probably be beyond ridiculous. Nolan's name didn't come up a single time in all of those threads and all of those posts and all of those polls about which #s the Met should retire, and for good reason, obviously. Anyways, you're cherry-picking the data here. Because if you wanna see how well 100-something win teams do in the playoffs, or how well the playoff team with the best record does in the playoffs, then there's absolutely no need to limit your data, conveniently, to the last three years. You could go all the way back to 1995, the beginning of WC playoffs, where 100 win teams won six of 20 WS's -- or 30% -- not meaningfully better than the 25% crap shoot rate -- and over such a small sample size, no less. Or you could go back to 1969, the beginning of divisional playoffs. Or back more than 100 years, all the way back to the first WS, to see how often the team with the better record won. But you're cherry picking. Just like I could say that Jake deGrom's the best pitcher in the history of baseball if I limit the data to just the last two seasons. So I went back to the very first world series up to 1968, the year before divisional play began, to see how often the pennant winner with the best record won it all. I left out the tainted 1919 Black Sox series and the 1981 strike shortened season WS. Also, there were a few seasons where both pennant winners had identical W-L records, so those seasons didn't figure in the final totals, either. FWIW, the team with the best record won the WS 33 times and didn't 28 times. Including the 1954 Giants, who had the best record in the history of baseball with 111 wins, but lost the WS. FWIW. Still not a meaningful sample size, and not much of an edge in any event. I'll still maintain that the WC has about as good a chance to win the WS as any other team -- "about" being the operative word. I'm not necessarily saying that every team has the exact same chance. It may turn out that a 100 win team does have some slight edge to win the WS -- say a 13 or 14% chance to win the WS and a WC team has an 11.5 or 12% chance to win it all. But that's not a meaningful difference and not the kind of edge you think that a team that wins 10 or 15 more games than a WC team won in the regular season actually has. And the reason for this, I would opine, is that the difference in quality between two teams that were 10 games apart in the regular season is not that big to begin with even though a team that's ten games behind probably knows by Labor Day, that they won't win their division. And so the edge is even tinier in a best of five or seven. If I had to put my money where my mouth is, I'd bet the Wild Card every single time.

=whippoorwill post_id=24301 time=1570897509 user_id=79] Well worth the 10 to 15 hours!

Ok. Let's go to numbers. I don't know that your point about multiple teams and only one champion being crowned is correct. I'll have to think that through. Maybe I've oversimplified, but there has to be some way to weight the fact that there have been 14 80 win WC's and only 6 100 game winners, but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. My way is the right way. Suppose that in this year's postseason, all eight playoff teams, (ten if you count the WC game losers, but let's use eight for simplicity's sake, As you'll see, it doesn't matter if we use eight or ten) won at least 100 games during the regular season. This means that the WS winner will be guaranteed to have won at least 100 games during the regular season since all the playoff teams are 100-something win teams. So would you then say that the conversion rate of 100-something win teams is one out of eight and that 100-something win teams fail to win a WS 87.5% of the time? It's illogical. Ok. Let's go to numbers. ... but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. In that same era, there were three years where there were 100 win teams. 2016-2018. In each of those years, the champion was a 100 game winner. Your numbers: 80something Win WC: 20% 100 Win Team: 100% But you're now cherry-picking the data to come up with numbers that support your opinion. This reminds me about the discussions here on retiring Gary Carter's uniform number, when Carter's fans would come up with "rules" for retiring a Mets number that weren't well thought out and actually, quite terrible. But Gary Carter met the criteria for those rules and that was all that mattered, because Carter's proponents first decided that Carter's number should be retired and so then came up with lame requirements that Carter was guaranteed to meet. So you'd hear shit like "Carter caught all of the post-season innings" as if suddenly, catching all the post-season innings merited a uniform # retirement. Or the contrived rule, specifically crafted for Carter, and also designed to keep out the likes of Warren Spahn, that any Hall of Famer who spent a nice chunk of his career with the Mets, never mind on what the hell "nice chunk" even means, should have his Mets # retired. That's a bad rule, first of all, because most rules here are dumb since a # retirement deserves a case by case individual assessment. And mainly, because that rule, which was retro-fitted and reverse engineered solely to ensure Carter's # retirement would prevent the retirement of David Wright's #, and Wright deserves a Mets # retirement more so than any other Met that hasn't yet had his # retired. The rule would also practically require that the Mets retire Nolan Ryan's #, which would probably be beyond ridiculous. Nolan's name didn't come up a single time in all of those threads and all of those posts and all of those polls about which #s the Met should retire, and for good reason, obviously. Anyways, you're cherry-picking the data here. Because if you wanna see how well 100-something win teams do in the playoffs, or how well the playoff team with the best record does in the playoffs, then there's absolutely no need to limit your data, conveniently, to the last three years. You could go all the way back to 1995, the beginning of WC playoffs, where 100 win teams won six of 20 WS's -- or 30% -- not meaningfully better than the 25% crap shoot rate -- and over such a small sample size, no less. Or you could go back to 1969, the beginning of divisional playoffs. Or back more than 100 years, all the way back to the first WS, to see how often the team with the better record won. But you're cherry picking. Just like I could say that Jake deGrom's the best pitcher in the history of baseball if I limit the data to just the last two seasons.

Edgy MD wrote: Dear Typewriter, With Noah Syndergaard farting his way down the stretch and across the finish line, it's easy to forget how impressively dominant he was when he was at his best. Do you have a card commemorating the stunning May 2 home game in which he pitched a 1-0 shutout and provided the lone run with a solo homer? Also, if you were a Batman producer, which actor would be your first call when trying to cast Two-Face? Peace and good things, Oswalt Pounders Ringo is so freakin stylish! Ringo, Ringo Ringo. You know what they say about 1966, dontch'a? That 1966 was the year of the three B's: Batman, the Beatles and James Bond. We love us some Ringo here at Typewriter Chewing Gum, makers of the finest Batman Mets cards in the whole wide world, including a 2019 highlhights card featuring Noah Syndergaard's domination of the Cincinnati Reds when he shut them out and homered, to boot, to acocount for the only run in a 1-0 Mets win. But if we were casting the Batman TV show, we would've set our sights on the on the brink of superstardom Warren Beatty. With Beatty in the role, the contrast between Two-Faces' two half-faces -- the beauty and the horror--would have been stunning. We made the Syndergaard highlight card back in the dead of Summer. Most of the work was done during that scorching heat wave on what was the hottest day of the year one weekend, when outside, it felt like about 110 degrees and that you were literally inside of a broiler, if you hadda be outside. This card ended up taking about 10 or 15 hours to make, its production stretching out over a whole week. If we knew ahead of time what we were getting into with this furshlugginer card, I don't know if we would've bothered. But we think its a beaut, so we're glad for that. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48885039613_7cc953615f_c.jpg>

I have no doubt that if it ever aired on TV instead of just radio, the winner hands down would be the 1-800- cars 4 kids ad. Later Got some good news/bad news for you. [YOUTUBE]K8UV7SAhvG4[/YOUTUBE] I thought you hadda be 18 to drive. At least in NYS anyways.

Well, it's Fonebone Friday and the mailbag is empty.

I don't know why you keep arguing as if my point was about Wild Card teams. It wasn't. It was about low win total teams. That's why I mentioned 87 wins. That's why I gave the average win total for the past 10 WS champions. Do you not see that the 2002 Angels, who won the Wild Card with 99 wins actually bolsters, not undermines, my point? Better Teams Tend to Win I know this sounds like a "duh" statement, but the prevailing logic is that once you get in, any team can get hot, and a 87 win Wild Card team can run the table. The fact is, in the last ten years, it just doesn't happen that often. Of the last 10 WS Champions, 4 of them won 100+ games. 8 of the 10 were Division Champions, and the average number of wins for a WS Champ is 97.1. Better teams win the World Series. Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%. I see you are trying to make a point about WC winners in general. And I guess you are free to make whatever point you want. I would offer that WC winners are not the same. Are they the 99 win 2002 Angels? Or the 98 Win 2003 Red Sox? Or are they the 87 win 2016 Mets? _____________________________ Your analysis is just goddamn awful -- like pathetic awful -- and you're butchering up these numbers to no end to prove a point that's unprovable anyway. But before I get into the numbers, to show you where you're way way off the mark, I want to address another part of your post. I don't know why you keep arguing as if my point was about Wild Card teams. It wasn't. It was about low win total teams. That's why I mentioned 87 wins. That's why I gave the average win total for the past 10 WS champions. This is bullshit, too. And you've been writing a version of this throughout this whole discussion. You make it sound like you've been crystal clear about what you've been trying to demonstrate all along (you haven't) and that I've been either misunderstanding or purposely mischaracterizing your posts. But every time you write another post, you change your "thesis" or "main point" and suddenly say that you're trying to prove something very different from what you said you were trying to prove in an earlier post. You change your "point" about as often as a mood ring changes its color. So at the beginning, you insisted on limiting the sample size to postseasons played under the current playoff format. Because I was opining that WC's have about the same chance at winning the WS as any of the other playoff teams, a point that you disagreed about, I was justified in believing that you were trying to make a point about WC teams. So then you corrected me, and wrote that you were trying to make a point, not about WC teams, but about playoff teams that won at least 100 games during the regular season. It wasn't about WC teams, you said. Now you're saying that your point is about 80-something win WC teams. So now it's about WC teams again. Fine. Whatever. Not a big deal. But it looks like you've been refining your arguments in response to my counter points -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- refining arguments is actually a good thing, especially if you're striving for the truth, wherever the truth may take you, instead of simply trying to prove your first idea no matter how inconsistent it is with the evidence -- but don't make it sound like you've been taking a consistent crystal clear position here all along and that I'm either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing your posts. But let's go on to your numbers, because this is where you really fail. So here's what you say: Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%. Before I get into the numbers, I just wanna point out that your cutoff is 2012. How convenient because the year before, the Wild Card Cardinals took the 2011 WS crown. A wild card team. Now the Cardinals won 90 games during the 2011 regular season, so they're not an 80 something-win team. But 90 wins is only one more win than the 89 they would've needed to win to qualify as an 80-something win team. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals had the worst regular season W-L record of any of the 2011 playoff teams, including the AL teams, too. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals personally eliminated the playoff team with the best record in baseball -- the 2011 102-win Phillies. That's a 12 game difference between the 2011 Phils and Cards. That's huge in baseball. If the two teams were division rivals, the Cards would've (naturally) finished 12 games behind the Phils and would have practically and spiritually, if not mathematically, been eliminated from 1st place by Labor Day. But so what sez me, when two good teams play a best out of five set? A best out of five game set is meaningless in determining who's the better of two good teams. Those teams would have to play each other head to head maybe 200 times for someone to say, with any mathematical meaningfulness, who's the better team. But whatever, we'll work with your set of numbers and leave the 2011 Cardinals out of this discussion. But like I said, how convenient. Okay, so once again, here's what you write: Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%. So this is more bullshit. Here's why: So you're talking about postseasons "since 2012". That's seven postseasons -- 2012 through 2018. Obviously, we won't include the current 2019 postseason because it's in progress and its WS winner not yet crowned. So we're talking about seven postseasons. And the thing is, that only one team could win the WS in any given year. There can't possibly be more than one WS winner in any season. So if you're talking about seven postseasons (2012-2018), those 80-something win WC playoff teams could not possibly have won more than seven WS's. At least seven of those 80-something win WC teams were guaranteed to have been eliminated before the WS team was crowned. So the conversion rate of those 14 80-something win teams isn't one out 14 -- it's one out of seven. Or 14%, not 7%. You can't logically charge those 80-something win teams with 13 failures (one out of 14) to win a WS when they could not possibly have won more than seven WS because, like I said, we're talking about seven postseasons. This would also hold true even if those 14 80-something win teams were, instead, 14 100-something win teams -- the cream of the crop of the regular seasons. Those 14 100-something win teams, just like their 80-something win team counterparts could not have won more than seven WS's and at least seven of those 100-something win teams would have "failed' in their quest to win the WS. This has absolutely nothing to do with the regular season win totals of those teams, and everything to do with the elimination round structure of playoffs baseball where only one team is left standing at the end of the playoffs. So we're talking about a one in seven conversion rate, not a one in fourteen conversion rate. But then your analysis gets even worse. And it's because of the way those 14 80--something win teams were concentrated or distributed throughout these seven postseasons from 2012-2018. Some years had more 80-something win teams than other years. And some postseasons had none at all. Like the 2013 and 2018 postseasons. Those postseasons had zero 80-something win teams. Every single playoff team in 2013 and in 2018 had at least 90 regular season wins. Which means that those 14 80-something win WC teams that you refer to, collectively, were crammed into just five postseasons. And so they could not have possibly won more than five WS from 2012-2018 -- because, like I said, those 14 teams were crammed into just five postseasons. So the conversion rate of those 14 teams is now down to one out of five, not one out of seven or one out of fourteen. 1/5 Or 20%. Which is about triple your seven percent conversion rate. And pretty damn close to the 25% rate that would show that baseball playoffs are a total crap shoot. So you're hanging your hat, and your whole big idea on the fact that 80-something win WC teams have won one out of five postseasons. Which is based on a microscopically and totally worthless sample size of five postseasons. And on top of that, if the Nats win the WS this year, that'll be two out of six for the WC's or 33%. And notwithstanding this 2019 postseason, if you back up just one year to include the 2011 WC WS champ Cardinals, then the conversion rate for WC teams is also two out of six or 33% which you don't wanna do (include those Cards), but whatever. Plus, if a WC team wins just one of the next three WS's, that'll be two out of eight (again, ignoring the 2011 Cards) which'll bring us to the magic 25%. Or three out of nine including the 2011 Cards. The percentages move big because we're working with tiny, statistically meaningless numbers. And the numbers, though meaningless, are consistent with my opinion, not yours. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%. Well, it's 20% conversion for the 80-something win WC teams, not seven percent. And a 30% win rate for 100-something win teams isn't significantly better than the 25% crap shoot win rate. This insurmountable advantage that you claim 100 win teams have over 80-something win teams in a short series just doesn't seem to exist.

=G-Fafif post_id=24155 time=1570709361 user_id=55] Ed Burns's documentary Seaver premieres this Sunday (10/13) on Fox late afternoon, following NFL. 4:30 on Channel 5 in New York. Also slated for sometime after midnight on FS1 following ALCS coverage. Check local listings.

now that there are 2 wild cards that play a play-in game, each individual wild card team has halved its chances because they need to win an extra "round" (game). if the post season is a crap shoot you are still twice as likely to win the WS by winning your division. so maybe we should try to build a division winner. Yeah. I wouldn't wanna be a wild card because one of the two WCs is guaranteed elimination after just its first "playoff" game. Plus the WC will potentially play three elimination games to get to the WS and because WCs are usually clinched on the last day of the season, or the day before, WCs don't always have the luxury of setting up their rotation for the WC game or resting its key players in the lead-up.. But if you take a macro-look at the system, the surviving WC team that gets to the Division Series might have as good a shot as any of the other playoff teams at winning it all, given the nature of short series baseball, with its rampant luck. And it's not just short series baseball -- all of the playoff teams are good teams, so it's good teams playing each other in short series'. It's certainly playing out that way -- this idea that the playofffs are a crapshoot and every team has about the same chance. If that turns out to be true, then the only drawback to being a WC, and it's an admittedly big one, is the one and done play in game to get into the round of four. The first place teams are guaranteed a spot in the round of four and at least three games, while the WCs aren't.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Besides, and Mets fans don't really wanna admit this to themselves, it was at best a brave but foolish play by Tejada made necessary by a very bad play by Muffy, as much as it was a dirty play by Utley that led to that tragedy I've always maintained that. And I'm still not convinced that it was a dirty play in the first place. I think that the league over-reacted only because of the severity of Tejada's injury, figuring that if Tejada could could get hurt like that, tomorrow it might be a marquee player or superstar. I also totally agree with the Dodgers' defense that if the roles were reversed, David Wright would've done the exact same thing that Utley did. It's called playoff baseball.

I'm not feeling any animosity for the playoff teams. Not even the Yankees, who I'm rooting against only because some of my friends are Yankee fans and I don't need to hear the good-natured razzing that'll come my way if they win, or even make it to the WS. What? I'm supposed to hate the Dodgers because five seasons ago, Ruben Tejada got Utley'd? This doesn't resonate anymore with me, because by this logic, I'd hate every team. Oakland took the WS from the Mets in '73. The Cubs Sutclffed the Mets and Dwight Gooden in '84. Ed Ott upended Felix Millan so if the Pirates made the playoffs, I'd hafta hate them too. What? I'm supposed to hate the Nats because they won more games than the Mets. That's on eff and Jeff. That's who youse should be hating. The Nats are doing their jobs. The Wilpons aren't. I don't get this anymore? The Braves are loathsome? Why? What are they supposed to do? Lose on purpose to the Mets so the Mets could make the playoffs?

=LWFS post_id=24145 time=1570683254 user_id=84] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24111 time=1570667996 user_id=68] =LWFS post_id=24105 time=1570665696 user_id=84] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]But still, the WC teams are just one WS away from the 25% win rate. Hardly anything to hang your hat by.

Hey! Look at that! The wild card team is about to eliminate the league's best team. A team that won 13 more games than the wild card team did during the season. A team that was closer to 110 wins than 100. That's umpossible.

=LWFS post_id=24105 time=1570665696 user_id=84] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]But still, the WC teams are just one WS away from the 25% win rate. Hardly anything to hang your hat by.

=Centerfield post_id=24083 time=1570653624 user_id=65] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24078 time=1570653022 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24077 time=1570652440 user_id=65] This is what I'm saying: Thesis: I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team. Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October. The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%). Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24076 time=1570651663 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24073 time=1570650847 user_id=65] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65] Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And even if they are in fact on equal footing, which is dubious, it's far better to shoot for 100 wins because, as marathon states above, your chances of getting into the playoffs are much better. You're much less likely to have to try to fend off five other teams in the final weeks of the season, and also to have to sweat out that one-game elimination round. That's true.

=Centerfield post_id=24077 time=1570652440 user_id=65] This is what I'm saying: Thesis: I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team. Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October. The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%). Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.

=Centerfield post_id=24073 time=1570650847 user_id=65] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65] Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

=Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65] Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24065 time=1570647183 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24049 time=1570641837 user_id=65] In the last 10 years, only one team (2014 Giants) fit this bill. Wild Card winner with 88 wins went on a run. Every other WS champion won 90+ games, and 8 of the remaining 9 won their division.

=Centerfield post_id=24049 time=1570641837 user_id=65] In the last 10 years, only one team (2014 Giants) fit this bill. Wild Card winner with 88 wins went on a run. Every other WS champion won 90+ games, and 8 of the remaining 9 won their division.