Seattle’s Championship Banner
I have never toured the confines of Safeco Field. I watch a few Mariners games throughout a given season, mostly when the Rays visit the Pacific Northwest, and I’ve never asked anyone who would know, but I do not believe the Mariners have a flag flying or pennant hung commemorating their 116 win season. Though I wish they did.
Ask most baseball fans: what is the ultimate team goal in any given season?
The responses will be something along the lines of “World Series,” “winning the title,” “championship,” or a synonym thereof. Fair enough. That goal is certainly shared throughout the league itself and it’s probably the correct answer. I pose this question to Mariner fans: would you trade that 116 win season for a World Series title? And to fans of the Phillies: would you trade your world title for a 116 win season? Both sides likely reply no. In part because familiarity breeds comfort and most people hate change.
Let’s try something different with the next set of questions. Which is more impressive? Which is more valuable? Which should be more respected?
Consider this: winning 116 of 162 games means the team won 72% of their games. Winning the 11 games required to become World Series champions in the post-season could mean the team won 58% of their post-season games if each series went the distance. We expect that, as sample size increases, the true talent levels will be unveiled in more clarity. Compared to 19 games, 162 is a large sample. 162 is a pretty small sample compared to what we would want if our goal was true talent levels throughout.
A 162 game schedule also represents more time in which injuries could occur, but there’s also the ability to add additional players throughout a regular season. In the post-season, what you have is what you can use. Also, in the playoffs, the quality of teams against which you play rises – or at least it should – and the amount of home games is decreased. Although, that might be a wiling sacrifice for teams who in turn get to use their top three or four starters instead of starting a so-so-option every fifth day.
None of this is groundbreaking and some may call it obvious. There is a large sector of college football fans – casual and diehard – who very much want a playoff. A real playoff, they say. It makes sense, depending on how you weigh the BCS with the potential selection committee. The idea is a bit odd, though. Why is it that we need a post-season tournament to tell us which team is the best? Is that not what the regular season is for? In the case of two or more teams that seem equally qualified, then the means of additional play as a way to give conclusion to the crown seems adequate, but if a team wins 116 games, they were (a) incredibly lucky and (b) incredibly good.
So I’m torn. It seems the majority place unfair significance on the victor of the final game rather than the 160 before. I don’t know if it’s right or wrong and I’m not even sure there is a right or wrong. I do hope Seattle has a “116″ flag though.
Some questions for discussion:
1. Is the ultimate goal to win, or to win the title?
2. What amount of regular season wins would you trade a World Series title for? What about the lowest amount of regular season victories with a World Series title for 116 regular season wins?
27
Seattle does have a banner for their 116 win season. It was incredibly sad to see that team lose in the playoffs. They deserved to be champions as much as any team has.
If they deserved it, they would have won.
Yay, for stoopid comments!
What teams did the Mariners face the most? Did they play an equal number of NL teams? So how can you even pretend like 116 wins was their “true” talent level and therefore they should have won the World Series? Seems silly to me. If MLB wants to keep the scheduling the way it is, then a playoff is the best answer. Otherwise, to crown a champ off the regular season you need some kind of round robin format where all the teams play each other. 5 games against each team would be a 145 game schedule and more indicative of “true” talent.
College football does not come close to approximating the best way to pick a champion. Imagine what would happen in MLB if the Royals were to have the best record, but everyone says the Yankees are the better team (BIG hypothetical), so they go to the title game along with some other big money team shutting out the team with the best record. In that scenario the TCUs and Boises of the world get left out of the title game. The magic of the playoffs is that anyone has a chance to win, as long as you were good enough to get there.
if they were the best the Ms would havc won the WS. the regular season is one part of the season. tiutle rounds are a must. true champions step it up each era of the season. 116 win season could mean any number of things, none of which are as great as winning a WS…
The ONLY goal is to win the championship. I don’t think the ’87 Twins feel ashamed of their title and the 2001 Mariners probably feel like they are missing something just as the 2008 Patriots do.
By the way, the 58% of games a team needs to win to win the series is probably against tougher competition than they faced in the regular season and very few of them are against a fifth starter.
Exactly, the difference in competition level can not be ignored. Certainly the playoffs are still small enough a sample size that luck plays a factor, but its rare that a team that is not very good wins a title.
Speaking of competition, the A’s were a 100+ win team that year as well. Tx and LAnaheim weren’t all bad either.
Come to think of it, I wish I were at the parade in Seattle celebrating the 116 win season….
A large part of that is because teams that aren’t very good don’t get to play in the playoffs in the first placed.
well yeah of course but “very few against a fifth starter” also means very few of them with your fifth starter on the mound. Doesn’t it?
Amazing that a reader had to point that out.
58% of Games v the top 4 teams > 72% of games versus everyone else (especially if in a weak division).
Like going 8-4 in the SEC is more impressive than 11-1 in the MEAC.
The 2001 AL West was not a weak division.
True. But, that wasn;t the point I was making.
My point STILL is that the games in the playoffs are against BETTER teams the the average regular season game. The point was not to compare the ALW to the MEAC.
The wins of the playoff teams in 2001 are:
SEA 116
OAK 102
NYY 95
CLE 91
What is the average number of wins of the OTHER non-playoff teams in the AL that year?
WIN totals are: 82, 80, 63, 62, 85, 83, 66, 65, 75, 73.
Win Averages:
Playoff Opps: 96
Non-Playoff Opps: 73
That’s the difference I was referring to.
The playoffs are often a “crapshoot” because they consist of FOUR quality teams.
In leagues where the number of playoff teams are much greater than 4, the playoffs are less of a ‘crapshoot’ (quality of playoff teams diluted, cream rises to the top).
1. Win a title.
2(a). Any amount; 2(b). 0.
Neuter copied off my paper! Or, since he posted first, I guess I copied off his. But his are the “correct-est” answers.
R. J.,
I’m not sure about my personal answer to your final question(s), but I know that I’ve always felt the purpose of a championship was to give excitement and thrill at the end of a long season. To crown a deserving team, but perhaps not the most deserving (IE, best) team.
I think it’s thrilling and the element of chance involved keeps us watching. At least it helps keep me watching… Knowing the Phils very well COULD beat the Yankees… etc.
The moment of culmination is far more enjoyable than a 162 game championship, which many a year would drag out long after it was settled. Meaningless September baseball for all, wooh!
:)
All said, I think I’d rather have a World Series title, but I hope the Mariners are extremely proud of that season. It was incredible.
As a Mariner fan I would say this: Someone wins the World Series every year. No one ever wins 116 games. It was incredible, a fantastic sports experience to watch that team.
As a non-Mariner fan, I say, ROFLMAO.
Roll on the floor if you like, but I grew up an A’s fan and rooted for 4 world champions, plus several championship Raider teams. They were all great, but I would put the 2001 Mariners fan experience above all of those. Woulda been nicer if we had won it all, but it was still spectacular.
“As a Mariner fan I would say this: Someone wins the World Series every year. ”
and every year it’s awesome.
You’re half right: the 1906 Cubs won 116 games in a 154 game schedule. But they’re the only other team to have done it.
RJ,
you need to improve your posts. Your last post about Jason Bay/Tommy Davis was dreadful and i won’t even go into asking why you’re posting about the number of hits “Jason Bay” + “Run Producer” brings back on a google search.
Now you’ve gone too far. The entire purpose of a baseball season is to win the World Series, not just to attain personal or team records. We all love stats here, but just because you win a higher percentage of games during the season doesn’t mean anything. Most people who remember the 2001 season will think of the NYY vs. ARZ in 7 games.
I’m sorry, but your posts and rants are not worthy of fangraphs.
Bluvelvety –
Don’t you think you’re being quite a bit harsh? He has a damn good point. It’s frustrating to know you have the best team and “nothing” to show for it. The playoffs are a crapshoot (hell the first round is a meager 5 games) and BP did an analysis on what aspects of the game are most highly correlated with winning in the post season. The answer? None. One of the most, albeit loosely, correlated factors was the quality of the closer (because most teams, like the 2009 yankees, use their closer (who tends to be the best reliever on most teams, sadly missued) to shut down post season games rather than as a 9th inning only guy).
Basically, the post season is a mindless crapshoot and it’s a shame when teams like the 2008 Cubs get knocked out because they get cold for 3 games in a row at the end of the season. Or how the Indians get knocked out bc CC has his only 2 bad games at the end of the year. Et. al.
Luck is a bitch; talent should have its reward
bluvelvety, stop being such a douchebag.
I didn’t know that writing on fangraphs was something one aspires to – it’s a site for people to shoot the breeze about baseball, not the Copenhagen Convention on Climate Change.
Again, stop being a doucebag, though I have the feeling that for you this will be quite difficult.
you must be fun at parties…
Nope, actually first thing I think of is the M’s, because that season was far more historic than the world series.
But I have to admit, the 2001 WS was fun to watch.
Well crap, I guess the nail that sticks up really does get hammered back down.
I agree with BV regarding RJ’s last 2 posts.
They were both very childish in their thinking.
I tell ya what … let’s ask the players what they PREFER, 116 wins and a non-title or the Cardinals 86 wins and a championship?
It was actually an 83-win Cardinals team that won the World Series. That one deserves an * for luck.
And you aren’t worthy of an internet connection. And yet you have one, and the Mariners have nothing to show for their 116 win season. The unjustness of the universe continues.
I agree with being torn, especially as a Mariner’s fan. Baseball is a bit of a contradicting sport as the breadth and depth of the regular season far out weighs the post-season, yet most people key on championships as all that matters. Which is also why the BCS is an awful analogy. There is no comparison between a 162 game schedule where most potential opponents are played multiple times (considering teams from both leagues the potential opponents) and a 12 game schedule where right around 10% of potential opponents are played and non-conference schedules are made by the teams playing them (hence the SEC that doesn’t actually play anyone out of conference, where each team plays 7 or 8 home games per year, what makes them so great if they only play themselves?).
I can’t imagine many Seattle fans would rather have that 116 win season as much as New England Patriot fans (me inclusive) want that 16-0 season as opposed to winning SB42 (and we have titles).
That being said, the ultimate team goal is to win, and the playoffs are a noted crapshoot. In the 00′s, a 116 win team missed the WS, and an 83 win team won it. All you can ask for as a fan is the best team possible fielded, and then hope luck goes your way. In the case of Seattle, luck did not go their way.
I know advanced statistics people like to be contrarians; and that they love stats because they prove conventional wisdom wrong,
opposed to confirming conventional wisdom. This is a bit much in my opinion though. I appreciate thinking outside the box, but I have to disagree on this one.
As a Pats fan, I’m infinitely more proud of any Super Bowl than I am of 2007. I try to pretend it never happened. I’m still proud of that team, they should be proud of themselves, and it was enjoyable to watch them, but the Super Bowl loss forever changed my attitude towards sports. I care less about every lost game/lost playoff round because they’ll never sting as much as that game.
Contrary to that, my team making the playoffs as a wild card and winning a championship has never made me feel that way.
Championships always feel better than regular season records, no matter which one is a tougher feat – therefore I value them greater
As a Pats fan, 2007 it’s almost a burden. No one will ever shut up about 18-1.
no one will ever pity your burden either.
I’m surprised it was just that and not a 5 page listing of spygate articles and L.T. quotes.
I went to sleep that cold, fabled night in 2008, hoping it was all just a bad dream. I was wrong.
18-1 eases the sting of the 2004 ALCS. Which would you prefer?
Funny, I’m not a Patriots fan, but I’d say that their 16-0 season was a lot cooler than their Super Bowl victories. And I say that as a 49ers fan who has seen some great seasons and a bunch of Super Bowl victories. 16-0 is just awesome.
It was simply the most perfect ending ever…
I saw about 155 of those regular season games in 2001, maybe 60 in person. That team was really a pleasure to watch, as you might imagine. They did everything well.
Sometime the next year I had this same discussion with a die-hard sports fan that followed the team in the newspaper (remember those?) and kept up with the results and stats but didn’t watch the games. To him, winning the World Series was all that mattered no matter how few games a team won during the regular season.
Yes, it was incredibly disappointing to have clearly the best team in baseball lose in the playoffs. No doubt about it. But the question as asked can’t really be answered. It depends on how well the team plays in the regular season. I would certainly trade the 116 wins for 114 wins and a World Series championship. But I wouldn’t trade it for 83 wins and a World Series championship. There is so much pleasure in watching team play truly great baseball day after day for six months. So the quality of play during the regular season has to come into the equation for me. I don’t know exactly where on the sliding scale the number of wins crosses the “unacceptable tradeoff” point but I believe it would be different for everyone and correlate to the number of games you actually see.
Individual and team records are what make baseball the sport with the most history. Be honest, how many football records do you know down to the number. Chris Johnson of the Titans just past Marshal Faulk for the most yards from scrimmage and I don’t think anybody outside Johnson and his friends really cares (good for him, btw). Football is a team sport and if you can win it all no one cares if you came from the NFL’s most potent offense ever or if you just played great football at the right time. Winning is everything.
Now consider the multitude of baseball records that fans, media, and ballplayers salivate over: 56 game hit streak, 130 stolen bases, Career Hits 4256, Single Season Hits 262, etc. Most of us know who holds those records because, in baseball, records are almost sacred. This is the reason baseball cards held such high popularity for so long (the internet[and greed] killed the card industry).
Having said all that, know that I am a lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan and that it doesn’t bother me in the slightest when other people point out that we had the fewest wins of any world series champions ever. I just smile and say “Yes, I can see how that would be embarrassing. Guess they’ll just have to comfort themselves with the shiny ring on their finger.” So the answer to the question is unequivocally, NO. I would not trade the ’06 series win to get those extra 33 season wins.
The consensus is clear, only seattle seems to not be willing to make the trade. Which surprised me since they are a relatively tortured fanbase across all of the major sports.
I think otherwise you takethe championship.
Sure there is an element of *luck*, but as other posters have (rightfully) mentioned, it is against the best teams.
This especially matters. If you are in say, the NL Central, and you get to play the craptacular pirates and reds and edwades 50 some times a year.
I would also add that not only do you have to beat the best teams, you have to beat them in all out win mode. Alot of teams use september as a chance to try out young players, give some journeymen their one cup of coffee, etc etc.
October, you are seeing the same top few starters over and over, you are seeing the best bullpen combo, and possibly someone like Mariano Rivera for 2 innings. The managers buthcer decisions more under this pressure, but those decisions are far more scrutinized than they would be in the regular season.
In short, it’s much more special to watch, and teams are in much more “maximize winning mode” I think i can speak for alot of fans when I say I watch almost half of my team’s games in the regular season, (or about 600 innings worth, i watch the last 5 innings of alot of games just due to work and whatnot), and maybe 200 innings of other teams all in through the season. I get to watch maybe 100 of those innings live (splitting season tickets 10 ways + getting out to 2 or 3 other stadiums for fun.)
But in the playoffs, and especially world series, I am watching as much as I can, whether or not it’s my team. As much as many fans are sick of the NYY-boston rivalry, there are alot of us who probably watched 100+ of the 130something innings.
So yeah, winning then is special, and I’d argue much more significant than pounding teams in the regular season.
The 2001 Mariners had a bunch of pretty good starters having career years (Sele/Garcia). The 2001 Yankees had a bunch of excellent starters having typical years (Clemens/Mussina/Pettitte).
It’s easy to say that the Mariners “should have” won that series based on the regular season, but the bottom line is that the true talent of that Yankee rotation was miles above the true talent of the Mariner rotation. And in that series, the Yankee starters did what Hall of Fame talent often does, it dominated.
I realize that this cuts to the heart of the argument, since we’re talking about the smallest of small samples, but I just wanted to point out that it WAS slightly more complicated than simple bad luck. Obviously luck played a part, but I think sometimes we’re a little too eager to attribute EVERYTHING to luck.
Have at me….
Mussina and the Roid Boys are all well and good (though certainly not all HOF-worthy, as you insinuate), but are you seriously doubting that the Mariners weren’t the better team in 2001? Are those extra 21 wins meaningless?
Rather: 2009 NYY weren’t necessarily better than the 2009 CHC?
I suppose if they were REALLY a great team, they’d have been playing in pinstripes.
isn’t it possible for a team to be better over 162 games with the strength of their 5 man rotation and all 6-7 of their relievers, yet not as good as when the opponent only has to use their top 3 starters and top 2-3 relievers?
also, “Roid boys”? with Brett Boone on the 2001 Mariners? really?
We all harp on SSS most of the time, and the playoff gambit is just that, SSS mixed with a crapshoot. Winning 116 games is much more impressive to me.
Very true – if you’re looking to define who the single best team is, a 162-game season should be much more indicative and reliable than a 3-week stretch in October/November.
Still, ‘success’ in most people’s minds is defined almost exclusively by championships, rightly or wrongly. Thus the most successful team is deemed to be the one that takes home the title, not the one that won the most regular season games.
The goal is to win the WS. I would not trade a WS title for any number of regular season wins.
“Why is it that we need a post-season tournament to tell us which team is the best?”
Because not every team plays the same opponents the same number of times. The Rays won 84 games this year and had to play NYY and BOS 36 times, while the Tigers won 86 games and played NYY and BOS only 13 times- so how can you judge what team is better when the competition isnt the same? To find out the best, you have the best play the best.
You mentioned the BCS, is an undefeated team from the WAC better than a 1-loss team in the SEC? Maybe, but you have to have them play one another because the level of competition is different in their regular season schedule.
I’ve been a Seattle fan since 1977. The year the M’s came from 16 back to win the division (1995) tops all other Mariner years, including the 116 game season (which was a truly amazing year). I wouldn’t trade 1995 for anything (it saved baseball in Seattle), but I would trade the 116 win season for a World Series title in a second.
“but I would trade the 116 win season for a World Series title in a second”
Agreed, are Cardinal fans upset with their 2006 WS because they only won 83 games? I’m going to take a guess and say no.
THAT WOULD BE A CORRECT ASSESSMENT FOR THIS STL FAN!!!
As I said in my earlie post:–”So the answer to the question is unequivocally, NO. I would not trade the ‘06 series win to get those extra 33 season wins.”
I remember 1995 more than 2001 as well. The regular season comeback, the Luis Sojo infield hit that cleared the bases in that one game play-in. Edgarrrr knocking in Cora and Griffey in Game 5 against the Yanks. 1995 was my sophomore year in college, and I skipped more than a handful of classes to watch baseball games that year.
While the ultimate goal is definitely to win the World Series, always, I think there’s a certain threshold where it’s worth it.
I mean I would trade a 162-0 season for a World Series win… just because of how much more impressive 162-0 is even if you don’t win the WS. Partially that’s just because a 162-0 season is pretty much impossible in baseball, but still.
But to answer the question as a Phillies fan, no way would I trade the ’08 WS for a 116 win season.
I know…. and how do you make a T-Shirt for 116 wins. And no parade. That’s the best part.
But would you really want to root for a team that went 162-0 and didn’t win it all? That team would be remembered as the biggest “choke” in the history of professional sports.
Not the same Ken as above…
I too watched most of the season games and I enjoyed every minute of it. And that is also the first year I started watching baseball, and before watching this team play I used to think baseball is a boring sports. I think that was like in the first year of high shchool when I decided to watch in April. I feel very fortunate to have not missed those 6 months, if it wasn’t for those amazing 6 months I may have never became a baseball fanatic. So my answer is no, I would not want to sacrifice any of those 116 wins because it helped me open my eyes to an awesome sports like baseball. The funny thing is I didnt feel that bad, at least not for very long after the Mariners got eliminated by Yankees because I was overwhelmed and quite satified and more over very proud of the Mariners with my 1st year of baseball experience being a 116 win season.
My suggesstion to at least give a little more advantage to teams who are much better is to do similar to what Japanese Professional Baseball does by giving the team with a better record to start off the series with a 1-0 series lead. Maybe not to the same extent, but something more then a home court advantage.
The Mariners lost that series in 5 games.
I don’t necessarily disagree with changing the format a little (though I would say that starting the series1-0 is absurd) to give a bigger advantage to the better regular season record, I’m not sure this argument really applies here.
The Yankees took both games in Seattle. The only game the M’s won was in NY.
So even if you changed the format to 3-2-2, the Yankees still win in 5 (yes, I am assuming everything plays out the same, which is a dangerous assumption).
Yeah your right though, giving a series lead in reality would only increase the odds of the team that is supposingly the better team (or maybe just luckier then the other team), but no gurantees of a series win. It would be something interesting to consider anyways, whether to a lesser extent or not.
There is a reason they had a 9 game series back around 100 years ago. 5 game and 9 game formats for a playoff offer home field advantage… however, 7 game formats do not…
Assuming you play all the games of a series… Let’s call the team with the better record Team A, the team with the worse record will be Team B.
Best of 5…
Team A – 3 home games
Team B – 2 home games
Team A needs to win 2 of 3 at home and 1 of 2 on the road. A .667 winning percentage at home and a .500 winning percentage on the road. During a regular season, this is the formula to a playoff birth. 67% of 81 = 54 wins, 50% of 81 = 40, which together is 95 wins.
Team B needs to win 2 of 3 on the road and 1 of 2 at home for a .667 road winning percentage and a .500 home winning percentage, which is much harder to do.
Best of 7…
Team A – 4 home games
Team B – 3 home games
Team A now needs to win 2 of 3 on the road for a winning percentage of .667 and go 2 of 4 for a home winning percentage of .500… OR they need to win 3 of 4 at home for a winning percentage of .750 and win just 1 of 3 on the road for a winning percentage of .333. Winning .750 at home or .667 on the road are both long shots and sweeping at home or on the road to get to 4 wins is even harder.
Team B only needs to play .500 on the road to grab 2 of 4 games ad then just win 2 of 3 at home for a winning percentage of .667, this is much more likely. Having to win 3 of 4 on the road if they can only manage 1 home win out of 3 games would be very difficult, but the most likely scenario in a 7 game set would be to win 1/2 the road games and take 2 of 3 at home since you are built to win at home.
9 game series follows the same formula as a 5 game series, only you expand it out 4 more games. When they shortened the series to 7 games less than 100 years ago, they took away home field advantage and while I haven’t taken the time to look yet, I would imagine that since the change, there have been more teams that didn’t win a 7 game series after earning home field advantage, than teams that did benefit from the home field “advantage.”
The point for bringing this up is to reference the “Mariners lost in 5 games and two losses were at home”, well if they start in New York for games 1 and 2, let’s assume they take 1 of those two since their only win came there. Then going back to Seattle, you can look to win just 2 of 3 games at home and then win 1 of 2 back in New York, which is a lot harder than trying to tell yourself that you need to win 2 of 3 in NY and 2 of 2 when back to Seattle.
**** Let’s also divert from the fangraphs statistical machine for a moment and say that if ever there was a time when emotional could be calculated into a victory, it was in 2001. With the destruction that happened in NYC on 9-11-2001, the country was crushed and everyone got behind the Yankees, REGARDLESS of who their team was. Some could argue that it destracted the Yankees and they would have been an even better team during the regular season without the chaos of the bombings. Also it could be argued that the Mariners were on a suicide mission heading into the playoffs as the Yankees had home field advantage wherever they played, especially in Seattle where fans understand the “big picture” a lot better than most cities. Bottomline, the momentum of the season took a turn for the worst after 9-11-2001 and the Mariners even started losing down the stretch, I would venture to say that had the attacks on NYC and the Pentagon not happened, the Mariners would have won 117+ games and taken home the world series championship, as they were only 7-5 the rest of September after the season continued.
I am sure that everyone who says they value a championship above all are sincere, but I think that the fact that this is the majority view illustrates how irrational humans can be about what they value.
I am a Mariners fan who listened to or watched just about every game of the 2001 season. Almost every game was exciting and fun. Even when the Mariners lost, you didn’t give up, because they would often come back. We got to see Ichiro, Edgar, Boone, and Cameron at the peaks of their careers. It was a very exciting six months, almost every day.
If the Mariners had won the World Series, there would have been an extra burst of excitement at the end, probably more _intense_ than anything that came before. But that’s approximately one week of intense pleasure weighed against six months of the best ongoing sports experience that I’ve experienced.
Studies have shown that memories are not fixed; we reformulate them every time we remember. Thus the ending of any thing always colors our view of what came before, to the point that we cannot accurately evaluate those previous experiences. A bad breakup makes you forget or think bitterly about all of the great and pleasurable experiences that came before. Your 83-win team gets lucky and wins the World Series, and you rewrite the season in your mind as an ongoing exciting triumph, even if the regular season was really just a fairly boring slog. This is what we do, but it’s not rational.
I watched every single pitch of the Cardinal’s ’06 world series run. I have never seen more electric baseball in my life. The Yankees won it all this year and you know what, I EXPECTED them to. They were clearly the team of record this year. John Smoltz pitching for the Braves needed to spoil it for the Astros on the last day of the regular season for the Cards to get to the playoffs. The series against the mets was simply epic. The fact is that NOBODY expected the Cardinals to go on a tear(even me). Are the playoffs a crap shoot? Absolutely. Can the give rediculously awesome spectacles? Yes. In that instance, the Cards won 94 games from start to championship and yes, it was better than winning 94 or 104 in the regular season. Just compare it to the ’04 Cardinals; they were the “class” of the national league that year and ended up with an awesome NL pennant and a disappointing World series sweep.
The only folks (actually a lot of them) that didn’t give the Cards serioius consideration were those that failed to realize the 06 Cards were basically the same team as the 04 and 05 Cards (both 100 win teams), except they were decimated by injuries in 06, and got healthy as the playoffs started (Wainwright replacing injured Izzy was a big key as well).
—————————
06 Cardinals started off 31-16.
Cardinals’ 06 Injuries:
Pujols — 3 hitter/MVP — month (June)
Edmonds — 4 hitter — 30-40 games.
Eckstein — SS/L-Off — month
Mulder — #2 SP — Year
Izzy — CP — month/playoffs
Not too shabby still winning 86 games. Lucky they were in the NLC for certain, but still a very good team, when healthy.
83 Wins. Sorry for the embellishment. *big grin*.
Being a rational person is one thing, “rationalizing” is another. This is just a clever way of disguising your disappointment. With the exception of baseball before the modern era, the goal of playing a full season is to win the World Series. That’s 100+ years of tradition.
And isn’t history filled with battles won by rag tag, inexperienced armies against better trained, battle hardened armies. I guess this is why we drink coffee and not tea.
The comment posted above is directed at the comment made by
b_rider and not the article’s writer.
I also find the main assumption in this article ridiculous. The world series is the most important goal. Winning 118, 110 102 games are all nice and even maybe more difficult than winning the world series, but difficultly is not the point.
Is it better for a player to hit 5 HRs in a game or win the world series. Which is harder? Certainly since no player has ever hit 5 HRs in a game and there is a world series winner every year then hitting 5 HRs in a game is harder.
Let’s not lose track of what is important. My first thought was the Patriots and I won’t go into that as other have done so very well. We also just saw thew Colts give up a perfect season (not just really good) in order to be in a better position to win the super bowl. They have their priorities straight.
I don’t think it’s fair to say the assumption of the article is ridiculous. Especially because everyone has different priorities, level of importance is not the same for everyone. To me both sides of the argument makes sense.
1. I can understand the concept of the ultimate goal to win the World Series.
2. I can also understand that playoffs isnt a good indicator for who is the better team.
This argument made me wonder what people thinks about the WBC b/c that has similar concept as number one because your depending on a very small sample size of games. Okay, but maybe this should be left alone for a whole new topic.
My preference is to see competitive baseball. I want my home team (the Phillies) to make every game enjoyable to watch, and spanking the other team does that. I’m also a fan of the sport in general and make a point of watching at least 10 games a year from each team. I don’t care much about championships, it’s nice when they happen, but I prefer to enjoy the product of good baseball to the win at all costs mentality.
In discussions with Phillies fans, there’s often many who would trade 10 seasons of futility if they know they will get 1 championship now. I’d much rather watch a team that wins 90-92 games a year, makes the post-season 6 of 10 years but never wins the championship.
When I think of the 06 Cardinals I always believed they were a much better team than there record indicated. Rolen missed 20 games and Edmonds missed 52. The previous two years the Cards had 100 and 105 win seasons. As a Giants fan the 103 win non-playoff 1993 season is torturer. While it was a great ride the last day of the season left us stunned. I remember watching the 2001 ALCS and thinking Seattle just looked over matched against the Yanks. Give me a World Series title every time over any great regular season.
So do we play a 162 game season for the hell of it, or to get into position to win a championship? Do you work all year simply to bring home a paycheck, or is there a bonus and/or evaluation period that you look forward to as a “payoff”?
For the existential types above, I agree to some extent that we irrational humans do a poor job of living in the moment and appreciating every day. But I also think you’re really missing the point. The payoff is everything. It’s the structure and fabric of our society. Everybody knows the rules and we agree that to some extent everybody starts with the same chance to come out on top in the end. In baseball, the WS champion is the best team. Period. It’s not the luckiest. We agree that it is the best, which means it is also the most talented. Most people do not want their lives to be assessed on a continuum, and all of our sports reflect that cultural paradigm.
No one is going to fault you for valuing a great season over a championship, but it’s not even wrong.
I’m a Seattle fan, and I’d trade the 116 win season in a second for a championship.
Are you kidding?
As a Marlins fan (secondarily to the Yankees, but in 2003, the Fish were my favorites), I can say that their winning the World Series, even as a Wild Card team, was better than anything they could have done in the regular season, even though I’m still waiting for them to actually be the best team in the division and win that title, and it would mean a bit more if they did. Likewise, as a GM, I’d know I did a better job if I ran the 116-win Mariners, but I’d probably feel better if I ran the 2006 Cardinals.
A lot of people are treating this like it’s a stupid question, but I wonder if it only seems that way because we’re so socialized to care about the final championships. Another problem is that it’s probably hard for the media to laud, say, the Mariners for being the best team when another team that wins the championship will likely be listening.
We’re socialized to care about championships in part because it is at the end. It is the point of the season. Let’s say you worked for the Obama campaign for two years and then on election day you were like, “we clearly ran the best campaign, so I couldn’t care less who wins.” Come on, if we extend this argument that a team that merely wins more games is better, why not evaluate it based on a specified period, not just a season. The Kansas City Royals’ were better than so-and-so (maybe even the Yanks, though I don’t care to look it up) from All Star Game 08 to ASG 09. Does that mean they were more talented? The regular season is played to get to the playoffs. The playoffs are played to determine a champion, i.e., the best team. It’s really that simple.
> We’re socialized to care about championships in part because it is at the end.
I don’t understand your argument. Certainly the fact that the championship comes at the end makes it _more_ important than the games that come before. But does that mean that the other games don’t matter?
I think Whartonite is right to say that this reaction is “socialized”–our culture generally fetishizes the end result to the point of devaluing the experience leading up to that end. But that is not how it has to be, nor do I think it is the best.
If the whole point of watching sports is to see your team win a championship, then, unless you are fan of a team like the Yankees who can win regularly, you’re going to be disappointed most of the time. Why do it?
I agree that that’s why we are socialized, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are. The campaign is a different issue. Baseball picks up again the next season, so who the better team is actually continues to be relevant, although I guess that’s not the point of this article. I still think it’s a different issue though, and one can’t just say, “We clearly ran the best campaign,” with any kind of certainty. It’s not like there’s a win-loss record that would really indicate anything different than what the final election does, which does not hold true in baseball.
The Royals were 69-75 during that period. Pretty sure that’s not even close to the Yankees, but I’m sure there are teams that are worse than that during that period, and yeah, maybe the Royals were more talented than those teams during that time. The reason that we separate it by season is, well… because we care who the best team is each season. Plus, the teams are more likely to make dramatic changes in the offseason. How can you try to say that the regular season is meaningless because it can be split up from All-Star Game to All-Star Game when the playoffs are essentially equal to any arbitrary 2-3 weeks of the season? No matter when you split them up, the best players and the best teams are always better indicated by more games.
I’m not saying I would rather go back to the non-tournament system or get rid of Interleague Play, but the World Series was a much more sensible championship when the best team from each league played each other after a full season of solely intraleague play. Even then, luck would be a huge factor, but this whole issue was kind of moot back then because comparing records between leagues would be useless.
That said, whichever team does win the World Series should of course be thrilled, as it’s still a tremendous accomplishment, and the one that I would subjectively prize the most. Objectively, though, I wouldn’t say that the champions of baseball are always (often?) its best team.
As for Obama: Winning the election was merely a means to the end of getting better policies. If we just won the election, celebrated with a parade, and that was it, it would be pointless!
Not to get all political, but if your goal in electing Obama was to get better policies, I’m not sure we’ve achieved that goal…
As a country we just need to hang up a “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner and call it a day…
(See? I dug at both sides to preclude partisan sniping.)
The article said that in the playoffs you get “fewer home games”, maybe you meant “more off days”? Because if you have the better record you actually get more (proportional) home games so that might offset the better competition to some degree.
As a Mariners fan, I’m quite proud of 116. But holy smokes, would I kill for a championship. Perhaps it’s because we’ve never had one — in any sport — since 1979. With a World Series somewhere in there between 1995 and 2003, it probably would be easy to take even more pride in the accomplishment of 116.
That’s just it. It’s because we’ve never had a championship. I loved the 116 win season, as much as I loved 1995, but the greatness of those years are only matched by the sting of watching them end in heartbreak. The memory is good as-is though.
Do I want a championship in Seattle? Of course! Do I want to change that amazing 116 win season and the memories of it? No, not really.
The answer is it depends. Since Seattle has never won a WS, then it’s worth more than 116 wins. If Seattle had won at least 1 WS or had even gone once, then 116 is worth more.
The championship is just more important than a fantastic regular season.
Every year a team is going to win a championship so its not very special compared to a 116 win season. But teams start the year looking to win a championship and play 162 games in order to win 116 (or 83) games in order to reach the playoffs for that championship, they aren’t winning those games to say they had a historic season. Others have said it in different ways, but reaching the ultimate goal is the most important thing.
For organizations, managers, players the ultimate goal is the WS. It’s the prize.
Of course the playoffs are a crapshoot, you have the best 8 teams and usually all ‘around’ the same talent level. Some players step up, some don’t. Some hit a rich vein of form, some are in slumps. The adjustments made by players is crucial. The manager can make a crappy call etc. What makes the playoffs great is this ‘human’ element. Over 162 games one can work out the value of any given player. Over the span of the playoffs, a given player can redefine his value buy playing out of his skin. I doubt they would consider improved performance pure luck, but rather stepping up and playing to their true talent level when it matters the most. The playoffs are the moments players/managers/organizations and ultimately fans live for. Its exciting!
Historical records like the Seattle Mariners 112 win season are great, and what baseball is also about. It should be talked about and remembered fondly. However winning ‘the whole thing’ matters most. In all sport. Including this one.
Reggie Sanders-Manny Ramirez-Alex Rodriguez. All players that either showed up or didn’t for the majority of their playoff games. Sanders made himself a legend by being transcendant in October.
What am I missing here?
Sanders was a pretty dreadful postseason player, while A-Rod is coming off of one of the greatest postseasons of all time.
I’m genuinely confused, not trying to be snarky.
I’m guessing since Tim is from Missouri he only cares about the one year Sanders played for the Cards–not the ‘majority’ of his playoff games.
Otherwise A-Rod is and has been a much better ‘post-season performer’ (if that really exists), since his numbers in the playoffs are actually ever so slightly better than his regular season numbers.
I think he means Reggie Jackson…
Something else to consider: Earlier I called the playoffs a crap shoot. Then WiileMaysField made me rethink my description. They are still a crapshoot but the fact is that since ’95 there are four extra teams(2 extra per league) in the playoffs. How many times over the last 15 years would fans feel the same pain as the 1993 Giants fan if we were still using the old playoff system? I know that even if my team doesn’t win their division they still have a chance to get in. That keeps many fans interested long after they would have given up hope prior to 1995.
RJ actually has a point. baseball is sport where randomness plays a larger role than in other sports. a football team can go 15-1 and no one blinks an eye – the better team almost always prevails on the field. but even the best baseball team EVER only won 70% of its games. in any one baseball game, anyone can beat anyone else, which is simply not true of football and to a lesser extent, basketball and soccer.
if we want to know who the best team is, each team in the NL and AL should have the same schedule, and play every other team in an equal amount of home and away games. thats how soccer works and no one disputes that the league is the best barometer of quality. knockout cup competitions are exciting because of the cinderella stories, but everyone accepts that luck plays a bigger role there.
it’s a joke that the rays, jays and orioles play each other and the yanks and red sox like a million times. it’s a joke that the NFL creates the illusion of parity by giving harder schedules to good teams and easy ones to bad teams. we live in a country that is fiercely meritocratic, but when it comes to sports, for some reason that all goes out the window.
You know that 14 of the 16 games an NFL team plays each season are pre-determined right? 6 games in division, 4 games against a division from the other conference, and 4 games against a division in your own conference.
i stand corrected. still, the point is that 12-4 in one division is not the same as 12-4 in another division. i guess there’s nothing that can be done in football since there are only 16 games (it’s still a 16 game season, right? how are the houston oilers doing?). fair enough.
but the effect goes beyond extreme in baseball. to put it simply, the regular season is a joke. the system is not that different from having two guys in a free throw shooting contest, one guy makes 90 of 100, the other 60 of 100, and then they roll dice 7 times and the worse shooter happens to get lucky and wins.
playoffs work in sports like football where luck plays a relatively insignificant role, but for baseball, where even yankees v royals is still 60/40 (or whatever), it’s silly and inappropriate.
Yes, but remember that the actual “out of division” teams you play is not determined until the final records are tallied.
The ultimate goal should be to win as many regular season games as possible. The championship should be an afterthought. The postseason is such a crapshoot, as the ’87 Twins and ’06 Cardinals proved, getting there is the trick. Then you have a 1 in 8 shot of winning it all. But if you can raise banners, that motivates your fanbase and gives you a shot to win it all.
So teams should head into Spring Training hoping to win 116+ games and not even care about a World Series?
Major League Baseball has decided that their Championship will be determined after a 162 game season ends by having a three-round playoff. So in order to win that, you must win all three rounds. The goal in baseball is not to win the most regular season games, it’s to win the World Series. Anything less is a failure. The Mariners just failed while playing very well that season.
As a Mariner fan I would trade that 116 win season for a World Series in a heartbeat.
I’d say the goal would be to win 116 games and the World Series, but the primary goal is winning as many games as possible just for the right to buy in.
As a Mariners fan, I think it is a little misleading to compare the 83 win season and the 116 win seasons. There is nothing particularly special about an 83 win season, what would be special is the team managing to win a world series after sneaking into the playoffs with 83 wins. So in my mind, I would value the WS title far more than the regular season in that case. Whereas, even though the Mariners did not win the series, the 116 game season was special in its own right. So even in loss, I felt like we had just witnessed something extraordinary that time has just made even more valuable.
And while I agree that winning the series should be the ultimate team goal, it is not the ultimate reason I watch baseball. I am a fan because of all the other achievements that take place in the course of a season on the way to winning or losing the series. This includes team accomplishments as well as individual stats and plays. I would expect that the team’s goal should always be winning, and not just the World Series but every single game. But as a fan, there are many things other than the World Series that make the game valuable.
There are banners above the upper deck in right field commemorating all of Seattle’s division championships. At the bottom of the 2001 one is a smaller green banner that runs the full width that says 116 wins.
As a longtime Mariners fan, I’d take a World Series anyday. Although 1995 is probably still the best division series ever, and was a lot of fun.
as a patriots fan I was more impressed with the team that went 18-1 and lost the superbowl than any of the teams that won the superbowl. A team wins that sports respective championship every year, however a team accomplishment like 16-0 or 116 wins is much more rare, and should be held in atleast a similar regard to a championship.
A championship to me is similar to the season end awards. There is an obvious level of performance needed, but also some luck and circumstance. The best team of any given year isnt neccesarily the campion, in the same way that the best pitcher isnt always given the Cy Young.
Despite what the world series championships say the best team in baseball in 2001, was the mariners.
Are you kidding me? I’d trade a 162-0 season for a WS title. Any time of the day, all week long and a gazillion times on the weekend.
Seriously, man. It’s all about winning the damn thing.
Thats ridiculous. People a hundred years from now won’t be like “yeah those 2010 (insert team) were awesome because they took the series, just like hundreds of others.”
But if you went 162-0, it would be LEGENDARY and remembered forever.
Yes, it would be “legendary” because the greatest team of all time got knocked out by a vastly inferior team in the playoffs. Great legend. Just look at comments from the Pats’ fans above. No one really cares that the Pats won all 16 regular season games. They needed to win that 19th game to be truly legendary.
As a current Philadelphia resident that grew up in Cleveland and was at many Indians games from the late eighties to the early nineties – yes before they actually any good – I will concur with the comments that, yes, it may be illogical or overly emotional, but the World Series title is more important. The Indians of ’95 had a .694 winning percentage in that strike-shortened season, which was the best in quite a long time until the Yankees and then Mariners topped it. Yet they lost to the Braves in the Series. Was it far more enjoyable for the team to be good and play exciting baseball in a sold-out ballpark for a solid six+ seasons, than it was when they were miserable and playing before 60,000 empty seats? Absolutely. But living here in Philly for the Series win, all the buzz, the parade, the after-glow through the winter and spring, it sure beat pounding teams all season, winning two tough playoff series, and then having an empty feeling after being shut out by Glavine et al, even if it was in turn the only title for a deserving Braves team. What’s more does anyone even remember how good the Indians were that year, at 100-44 and with Belle, Thome, Ramirez, and Lofton far better than the team that came within one out of winning two seasons later thanks to the best month of Jaret Wright’s life, good defense and some luck?
Their division championship banner says 116 wins on it.
Very timely question since the Colts just made that choice. I grew up a Yankees fan even though I’ve lived in North Central Washington all my life. I remember Casey only had one 100+ winning season… and finished 2nd to Cleveland in 1954. Give me the championship every time. I do remember the 2001 season well, especially because the Mariners did all that w/o Griffey, ARod & Randy Johnson. I grew to detest all 3 and still do. 2001 Mariners was a great team. Really fun to watch.
As to the Colts. I don’t watch football, and haven’t since Johnny Unitas retired. For some reason the game is of no interest to me at all anymore… same goes with the NBA.
Maybe another way to pose the question:
Would you rather have 1) a team win 116 games and then see everyone get injured before the postseason and lose in the 1st round, or would you rather 2) see everyone injured during the regular season, but sneak into the playoffs 100% healthy, and win the WS in dominating fashion? It’s not about which team is better, but which you’d rather see. In case 1, you can always say that your team was amazing and could have won the WS if healthy, while in case 2 you can always say your team was amazing, and could have won 116 games if healthy.
I think given those two choices, I’d take the WS champion team—there’s something especially thrilling to me about October baseball, watching games against two good baseball teams. At some point though, the wins would definitely be more worth it. Maybe 130 or 140 games. For me, it would have to be high enough that it would feel like no team ever again could conceivably come even close to duplicating it. A truly, unbelievably legendary season.
Put it this way. In my head to head fantasy league the following year, I went 20-4 in the regular season and lost in the playoffs. It still hurts. I renamed my team the Seattle Mariners for 2 years after that.
Being ridiculously good and losing in the end is about the worst thing that can happen to any team. It sucks. I wouldn’t wish that on any fan base.
Statistics are great for analyzing the game… but they don’t replace the game!
The goal of major league baseball is to win the world series, not to get he most impressive statisitcs (win-loss percentage or otherwise).
I’m not denying that winning a championship is great and that every player wants to do it. But I don’t see why that is qualitatively different or vastly more important than everything else that is good or enjoyable about the game. For a fan or a player, it is just one good experience out of many that might be had.
It’s not about the statistics. It’s about watching an historically great team play great baseball for six months.
It’s not that the Mariners won the most games, it’s that they won a historically-high number of games that year. With some time, I could tell you who has won 85-90 of the WS played. Off the top of my head, I can tell you the five teams that have won 110+ regular-season games in the World Series era – the ’06 Cubs, the ’09 Pirates, the ’54 Indians, the ’98 Yanks and the ’01 Mariners. Those teams are immortal, even if only two of them won the Series.
“it’s that they won a historically-high number of games that year.”
That and a train ticket can get you to Arizona, where you can see the 2001 World Series trophy.
1909 Pirates of course. The 2009 version featuring luminaries such as Brandon Moss, Ramon Vazquez, Ian Snell, and Jeff Karstens came up *just* shy of that 110-win plateau. And who can forget Brian Bixler and Jason Jaramillo. And Phil Dumatrait. And…and…
Hey dont be too down on Brandon Moss. Dude went to my High school. Nice guy he is.
I would take the 116-win season.
Baseball’s long season makes the game special; unfortunately, the expanded, wild-card playoffs devalue this. A proven best team must face very good but lesser teams, and, of course, the race does not always go to the swift. The Colts were petty in throwing away perfection; Jim Rice getting in to the Hall of Fame does not make him a better player than Tim Raines; and the 2001 Mariners were the best team in baseball.
If winning the World Series was the only thing that mattered, I would become a #!&* Yankees fan.
I’m taking it that you’re a Mariners fan (apologies if i’m being presumptuous)?
If you ask a fan of any team who has experienced their team winning the WS would they rather take a 116 (also apologies for my previous typing mistake!) win season, I would guess they would say no. As an Angel fan I know I would. Our 100 win season 2 years back means less than our 97 win season last year cause we beat the Red Sox in the first round. However 2002 was special and greater than both.
I’m sure Red Sox fans could give a damn they won the WS whilst being a wild card.
This isn’t an attack on Mariners fans, rather pointing out that their greatest recent achievement is 116 games in 2001, and they will adaptively feel the importance of this record to their recent history.
Likewise if you haven’t experienced the elation of having your team win a WS perhaps your judgement of the value of the regular season record or a title may be unfairly skewed.
I am a Cubs fan who, within the last year, moved to Seattle. For the first time in my life, I find myself considering switching allegiances. I did closely follow the 2008 Cubs: to watch the Cubs play beautiful baseball was amazing. If an 83-win Cubs team managed to sneak into the playoffs & win a World Series, I imagine that I would be happy, but I KNOW that I would be a bit disappointed that a mediocre team (and 4 games over .500 is definitely mediocre) succeeded where better teams failed. (I was not, for instance, horribly disappointed by the 2007 Cubs playoff failure.)
Were the 2006 Cardinals a “mediocre team” or a team similar to the 100 win 2004 and 2005 teams, that just happened to have some serious injuries in 2006?
Please learn the difference. I’ll help.
The 2006 Cardinals were a REALLY good team that had a ‘mediocre’ record due to big injuries to key players.
I’m surprised so many “in the know” fangraphs readers don’t look past the W-L record.
baseball is such a random sport, why not decide the world series based on any random 7 game series during the season? it would be just as arbitrary.
i mean, we could have the pirates play the yankees in a 7 game series right now and the pirates would still win at least 1 out of 3 times!
This argument is cultural in a lot of ways and is based on the weight we put on postseason tournaments. Most arguments in favor of the World Series win state that the “goal” of a season is to win the World Series.
Ask an English Premier League fan if they’d rather win the season points title or the FA Cup. They’d say the points title. It’s the most prestigious prize a club can win. I like that. In baseball in seems ridiculous to play 162(!) games and have them essentially not count.
I’d love to see a trophy for best regular season handed out and held up next to the world series trophy. Of course there is the issue of the unbalanced schedule….
Baseball’s history as always been decided by the playoffs.
The premier league’s history has always been decided by the league title (also teams play one home and one away game against everyone per season).
History and tradition play a part in both.
The FA Cup is interesting, because for any non-premier league fan it is the most important. The hope for a big cup game and cup upset adds to the romance. And for any supporter of a premier league team outside the big 4 they will say it is the most realistic chance at winning a trophy.
Unlike in Baseball, where teams (perhaps outside the AL East) have a realistic shot of making the playoffs each year. Good teams frequently change in baseball, however do not in football.
I say this as a long suffering Spurs supporter.
There have been numerous studies that show that, although there is a huge correlation, success in the regular season does not always predict success in the post season. It has been shown that (simplistically) hitting helps make the playoffs and pitching and defense helps win in the playoffs. So I don’t think winning during the regular season is the ultimate goal – GM’s shouldn’t optimize for this. They must factor in regular season, postseason, and future considerations.
While I do believe that Seattle was probably the best team for both regular season and playoffs (so they were “unlucky” not to win the WS), I don’t think that there is anything wrong with calling the end of their season a disappointment. Much as I consider the Patriots losing the Superbowl in 2007 the most disappointing sports moment of my life.
I’d trade the 116-win season for a World Series win, simply because I think it would be more exciting and satisfying to me as a fan, but 116 wins is far more impressive.
I think the whole “playoffs are a crapshoot” argument doesn’t really work here considering how badly they lost to the Yankees. Was it merely a coincidence when the entire Mariner offense went stale for that series? Or did they just decide to pay bad baseball straight after the Indians series? How come they only had this kind of strecth just once during the entire 2001 season? Because in the playoffs, you play tougher competition.
Was it merely a coincidence when the entire Mariner offense went stale for that series? . . . Because in the playoffs, you play tougher competition.
And in the regular season, the M’s went 6-3 against that “tougher competition,” outscoring the Yankees 55-43. That’s also a tiny sample, of course, but that’s the point. I’ll trust the largest sample I can get, and from here it appears the M’s were the best team in baseball.
Then they should have proved it in the playoffs.
Who cares about winning the most games in the regular season? Its about getting to the playoffs, not winning the most games in baseball. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be a playoffs and we’d just hand the WS trophy off to the team with the best record every year.
The fact that they actually have a banner celebrating the 116 win season is more sad than anything.
Then they should have proved it in the playoffs.
This is the point of the discussion. How can you prove anything over five or seven games? Baseball is hugely dependent on luck, and a short series is essentially a coin flip unless you have Sabathia pitching every two days.
Who cares about winning the most games in the regular season? Its about getting to the playoffs, not winning the most games in baseball. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be a playoffs and we’d just hand the WS trophy off to the team with the best record every year.
And that’s exactly how it works in some sports (European soccer being the most obvious example I can think of). I’m not saying one way is right or wrong — that’s purely subjective — but it’s at least worth discussing why we value the playoffs more than long stretches of dominance.
Because it’s more exciting? Probably. I love the playoffs. But I have no problem conceding that they’re probably not the best way to determine the best team in baseball.
proving it in the playoffs is fine and dandy, but baseball is inherently a game where even the worst team in the league will still win 1/3 of its games against the best team in the league. i don’t think SEA’s overall record against the best 3 AL teams that season lets them down. things just happened not to click the one week where they were playing the yankees in october.
i dont think anyone believes that one 7 game series is conclusive proof that the winning team is better than the losing team. it’s just how “winners” have historically been determined and we accept the result.
Winning a WS is always the goal for the team, and more emotionally satisfying for the fans. You can put the 116-win Mariners in the argument for one of the best teams of all time, but the fact that they didn’t win the WS that year argues against them. In a similar vein, the Giants have more wins (most of them in the regular season) than any other team in sports history, yet have only 5 WS titles (and a few pre-WS titles). I don’t think anyone would argue that they are the greatest team of all time.
In a vacuum I would prefer 116 wins. But in reality I wouldn’t want to have to hear all the media applying collectively the “choke” tag to my team. So maybe a WS. Or 116 wins and my four starter and three best players got hurt (minors injuries) and could not play in the playoff. Thus the medias can claim bad luck and not said that they are “unclutch” and cannot rise to the moment ect.
I am a Mariners fan and it does hurt not to have won the title in 2001.
The sad thing about sports, is that often the ‘best team’ isn’t what we recognize. It’s the best moments.
For example, even though the Pats lost to the Giants, no one really talks about the 07′ Giants as being the best team that year. It’s because no one really notices that they won, but rather the Pats lost.
Another example I like is the 2004 Red Sox. For the fact that they were thought to be dead after being down 3-0 to the Yankees, they will be remembered because of the great odds they faced, and prevailed. Teams that aren’t supposed to win and do, and teams that are supposed win and don’t will always stand out more then the ‘best team.’
Another thing somewhat over looked is the competition the AL West had early on in the 00′s. Sure the Mariners made the playoffs in 01′ but many forget that they won 93 games in both 02′ and 03′ and didn’t make the playoffs either year.
for most ballclubs, I think the realistic goal is to win at home to make the fans happy and try to make the playoffs.
I think that all the focus on championships diminishes the importance of having a fun team to watch who wins games at home. Baseball, in its 162 game season, is more about the experience of being at the ballpark for an evening or watching a team’s season unfold than it is about winning, say, a super bowl or a stanley cup.
though it is nice to win it all.
MLB and its fans have given the WS it’s value. Objectively speaking it doesn’t necessarily have any greater or lesser value than the regular season. Before the WS was created, I imagine fans were equally as pleased with the champion being decided by overall record. It could have remained that way, if say, one of the AL or NL had folded. Or, perhaps, if there wasn’t such a rivalry between the leagues and their owners.
As many know, the soccer leagues of each country in Europe crown their champions based on regular season record. The fans are thrilled to win it, taking to the streets to celebrate. Yet, they each have a cup or type of playoff, that’s considered a separate, usually not as illustrious, title. But, the biggest title of them all, the Champions League, is in fact a playoff comprised of the best teams in Europe.
Perhaps if the best baseball playing countries were closer in proximity, talent more equally dispersed, and the economies more on par, something like the WBC would have grown years ago to be the dominant title. The best teams in MLB against the best of leagues in Canada, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Cuba, Panama, the DR, etc. A real WS.
Our WS is the goal, because most of us agree it is. Objectively speaking, the best regular season record may be equally, if not more impressive one season, though not the next.
The answer is it depends. Since Seattle has never won a WS, then it’s worth more than 116 wins. If Seattle had won at least 1 WS or had even gone once, then 116 is worth more.
I agree, completely. If the Mariners had won the World Series before the 116 win season, I think that most M’s fans would agree as well. Because the Mariners haven’t even been to a WS, I think that asking most of their fans results in a somewhat distorted response. M’s fans are desperate for a “championship”, so yes, they’ll give up just about anything for that. This coming from a lifelong M’s fan.
After reading every response on here, it seems to me that most people are getting two things confused. There is a difference between what the fans would like to see and the team would like to achieve, and what outcome proves a team was “better”.
Greatness is determined by the ability to perform at a high level repeatedly, time after time. That is why there are minimum at-bats during the season to determine eligibility for statistics such as batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, etc. This is the same reason that the damn Yankees, as an organization, are considered the best team in baseball history. They have performed at a high level repeatedly, time after time. 27 times, to be exact.
The Mariners’ 116 game season was a microcosm of the Yankees history as an organization. The Mariners absolutely dominated just about every team that year. The only team that they did not have a winning percentage against of more than .600 was the Athletics, who they went 10-9 against. Other than that, they were 6-3 against the Yankees, 5-2 against the Indians, 8-1 against the Twins, and 6-3 against the Red Sox. Those were all of the next best teams, in order. The fact that they were able to stay that dominant for that long was just incredible. I personally believe that completely outweighs the fact that they went 4-6 in the playoffs and were eliminated. They had already solidified themselves as one of the most dominant teams in baseball history.
So if the question is, “Which proves a team is “better”, winning 116 games or winning the World Series?”, I’d say, without a doubt winning 116 games proves far more that a team is “better”. If the question is, “Which proves that a team was good and also happened to do well at the right time in the right place?”, then definitely that would be winning the World Series.
Now the true feat would be winning 116 games AND winning the World Series, or even coming close. As much as it pains me to say so, that would very clearly be the ’98 Yankees. They were without a doubt, the best team in MLB history. The 2001 Mariners were also, without a doubt, the second best team in MLB history.
I think it’s pretty simple: The goal is always to win the championship in the end, regardless of how you get there. The Cardinals won 100+ games in 2004 and 2005, but the inferior 2006 won the World Series. In the end, that makes 2006 a better season for the team (in my opinion) than 2004 or 2005.
I dont care if my team finished 162-0 in the regular season; it does not mean A THING to me; I want my team to win the championships (World Series in this case).
As the 2007-08 Patriots who finished 18-1; Who cares they went 16-0 that season? They lost THE MOST IMPORTANT GAME – the SUPER BOWL and THATS WHAT COUNTS !!!!!!!!
Look, I am a huge M’s fan with few equals. That being said, I would gladly trade 116 wins for the World Series Championship anyday. (BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE ONE !) The 116 wins Seattle put up in ’01 was CRAZY, they won every series they played that season except for the final series vs. the Oakland Athletics who by the way won 103 games that year. The Mariners were the best in 2001, no matter what anybody says. However it happened, being put in nuetral from the break following the 9/11 attacks or SWEET LOU playing old veterans vs. the Yanks instead of the players that got them there, the M’s will be back in the playoffs soon for another crack at the TITLE.
The playoffs ARE a crapshoot, otherwise the same team would win every year, it’s whoever the hottest is at the time, period. If the M’s won the world series in ’04 and ’07 like the Red Sox, there is no way I’d trade 116.
And for all that about the Pats’ perfect season cut short, DEAL WITH IT YA BUNCH OF BABIES, A PERFECT SEASON. You guys won the Super Bowl 3 out of 4 seasons, not counting ’97. Listen Boston fans, NO MORE COMPLAINING YA SPOILED BRATS. U got the Pats, Red Sox, and Celtics with championship titles over the past few years. Be greatful that your franchises make it to the playoffs every year, you’re that last fans I wanna hear complaing about any sport. (LUCKY UNGREATFUL FANS)
They do have a flag, of sorts. If I recall correctly, there are three banners for their three division titles. The 2001 flag has a thing at the bottom that says 116 wins.
As to trading it for a WS title….I think that I would trade the 116 win season for a world series title, but it is close.
116 wins has only happened twice, and someone wins the world series every year. So that’s pretty cool. But since the Mariners have never won or even reached the world series, my answer is yes, I would trade the 116 win season for a ws win.
as a lifelong mariner fan, i would, without a seconds hesitation, trade 116 wins for a world series title. to suggest otherwise is insane. I cant imagine a serious sports fan or anyone that has ever played professional sports agreeing that any regular season feat is as important as winning it all.
as magical as 2001 was, i can only regard it as a disappointment. the post season fizzle left a bad taste in my mouth, and crushing the opposition all season long only to fail to even win a pennant is akin to ejaculating in your jeans on the verge of losing your virginity.
Another Mariners fan weighing in:
As Mariners fans, we have very little to take pride in. The franchise has 11 winning seasons in 33 years of existence. We’ve made 4 playoff appearances, never making it past the ALCS. We’ve never had a reign of dominance, never even won back-to-back division titles. For this reason, we take great pride in 116, and probably wouldn’t trade it for a World Series. It could be a very long time before any team breaks that record, and it is something Mariners’ fans can take pride in no matter how poorly the team is doing.
If I knew the Mariners were never going to win a World Series, I would trade the 116 win season for a World Series championship. But as long as I can continue to hope for an M’s World Series, I wouldn’t trade the 116 win season.
Couple of posts above saying that if the Mariners had a ring, then they would take the 116 win season over a second ring, but since there’s no ring, they’d rather have one ring than the 116 win season.
As a Yankees fan, I will say I would never trade even one ring for a 116 win season. If that Yankees lost the series in ’98, it would have been terrible. Not trying to knock the Mariners fans, but there is no player that starts spring training with a goal of having the best record in baseball. The goal is to make the playoffs. Once you make the playoffs, the goal is to win the series. If you go in the prohibitive favorite to win it all and lose, the season is not fulfilled. That is the entire point of playing the games, and I’m sure every one of the players on that team would admit that while proud of the accomplishment, the lack of a ring stings.
Yes, statistically, it’s more impressive to win the regular season, but who cares what’s more impressive? What’s more rewarding and what’s remembered more? The champions.
Under most conditions, I’d argue your final point. The champions are not always remembered more. Who won the 1954 World Series? Who won the 1906 World Series? I’d be willing to bet more people know about the 1954 Indians and 1906 Cubs than the 1954 New York Giants or the 1906 Chicago White Sox.
That being said, the 2001 WS was a particularly memorable one, so the 2001 D-Backs will hold a special place in history.
Just look at what the team thought after losing to the Yanks:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20011023&slug=stone23
The goal is to win the World Series, not win the most regular season games. Thus, they are not the greatest team ever. Besides, the 98 Yankees dominated during the regular season at basically the same level and still walked to a WS by obliterating their opponents in the playoffs.
Who was the better team?
The 116 win Mariners who lost in the ALCS (in 5 games no less) or the 114 win Yankees that won the WS?
They didn’t win the World Series, they didn’t even make it to the WS. Celebrating that season is pointless in that light.
Honestly, as a fan, would you rather your team won the most games in the regular season or won the World Series? If you say the former, why do you even watch baseball?
obviously. you get the trophy by winning the series, that’s obvious.
but the more interesting argument is, why should the champion be determined by one 7 game series in october, given that the nature of the game is such that the better team quite often does not win? are you comfortable with a 7 game series being the definitive, eternal arbiter of who gets to be world champion when even the royals would win 1 out of 3 games against the yanks/red sox? even poker is less a game of chance than MLB baseball.
There’s a huge difference between winning 1 of 3 and winning 4 of 7. Besides which, the teams that make the playoffs are the best in each league per their win totals (something Seattle did that season). The fact that they got hammered by the Yankees in the ALCS takes a bit away from their great regular season.
I am completely comfortable with the current playoff setup…though if I were in complete control, I would modify the schedules slightly:
1. Go to a 7 game Divisional Series and go back to a 154 game regular season to shorten the season so we’re not playing games in late Oct/early Nov ever again.
2. Go away from the unbalanced schedule and play more games against other teams in their respective leagues so teams can’t beat up on a weak division.
Still, the current setup works and works well.
The Mariners don’t strictly have a banner commemorating the 116 wins. On the bottom of their “2001 AL West Champs” banner, there is a line that reads “116 wins”.
Also, I am from Washington and a huge Mariners fan and I would trade the 116 wins for a World Series title in a heartbeat.
I am a mariner fan to an unhealthy level and I would also trade those wins for a world series in a heartbeat. when it comes to mariners fandom, 2001 is a far second in how much it is celebrated to 1995. in 1995 we won 77 games in the regular season (strike shortened) but it was the excitement of the last month and then the playoffs that stays in our memory. Especially since this city has been severely championship deprived for a long time with only one professional men’s sport championship (sonics 1979), I believe that the vast majority of fans would easily trade the “best” season for simply a good season and a championship.
The 2001Mariners were the greatest team in baseball history. 116 wins. Would I trade it for a World Series? No. Someday I’ll have both.
No, they weren’t.
Technically the 1906 Cubs were the greatest team in baseball history. They won 116 games with 8 fewer chances.
I would think the 1998 Yankees were the best team of the past 30 years. They won almost as many regular season games (114) and walked through the post-season (11-2).
I respect the 2001 Mariners 116 wins as an historic achievment, certainly something to be celebrated. On the other hand, they were the league leader in wins that season, so in that respect should we honor the 2008 Angels or the 2006 Yankees, both teams with embaressing first round exits? I understand that from an objective standpoint a 7-game series is random and unfair, but, for me at least, that randomness and the unexpected outcomes are what makes sports exciting. Additionally, and I apologize if I come off sounding like a dumb, old-school, bad baseball fan, but it would seem that the pressure to perform in a 7 game series is more tangible than over a 162 game season, and, for better or worse, society rewards pressure performers (or, fluky, lucky, beneficiaries of a brief random positive trend over a small sample-size). Personally, since that 2001 yankees team was coming off of 3 straight titles, and was an out away from a 4th that year, I have a hard time believing that their 4-1 win in that ALCS was just luck.
As a mets fan, trouncing the league in the regular season in 2006 was great, but if I could trade those 96 wins for the 2005 team to have snuck in at a few games over .500 and win a title, Id take it. And as much as it might have been just a few bad games for the Mets in that 06 NLCS, ask a mets fan and they’ll tell you that team was flawed, gutless, and mismanaged
116 wins. That’s season long excellence unequaled in the modern era. Postseason? That’s small same size. You play that 2001 season in pre-1969 and the Yankees don’t even make the World Series. There was a time when you couldn’t sneak into the W.S. thru the back door.
Yes, we call that pre-expansion. Its not as if that Yankees team was a fluke since they were in the midst of a multi-year dynasty. They were the better team and they crushed the Mariners in 5 games.
MLB realized that an expanded playoff system was needed (same with the development of the Wild Card in the 90s after another round of expansion).
Its not as if Baseball is like the NHL or NBA where half the league makes the playoffs.
To quote Herm Edwards: “You play to win the game [or in this case, championship].”
The Mariners 2001 season is certainly a great achievement (although as a fan of an AL team in the Midwest I must confess that 2001 brings me to the Yanks/D-backs series, then the A’s/Yanks series, and not the Mariners’ season), but the rules of baseball have for years stipulated how you go about winning a World Series.
1. Get to the playoffs.
2. Win the playoffs.
Two steps. Now it could be argued that the rules do not bring about the best team as champion, in fact, that argument is relatively easy to prove. But, as far as being a total crapshoot, they are not, and teams that are better built for the playoffs (for example, using their resources to acquire more top-line pitching with less depth) should be rewarded for doing so.
The 2001 Mariners went 17-6 in the last month of the season, when they entered it 17 games up. They went 10-2 after they had officially clinched the division. They were a great team, but am I supposed to be impressed that their scrubs were better than the scrubs of Texas. Anaheim, and Baltimore while they were playing out the season. Meanwhile, the 1998 Yankees went 14-10 in the final month of the season, essentially cruising in for 114.
In baseball, the overall record is subjective, and 116 to me, is as impressive, not more or less impressive, as 110, unless of course the second place team is actually within striking distance at the end of the year. The Mariners were the best team in baseball that year, but, alas, not the WS Champs. However, when I start seeing people say that they were the 2nd best team ever (even proportionately the 2nd best team ever in their particular season, forgetting talent dilution through expansion), I would caution such bold statements.
Looking at it statistically, let’s assume Seattle was a good team that year and that their true ability was to win 100 games, a pretty good team most years. If that was their expected performance, then there was a 0.3% chance that they would actually win 116 games. That’s pretty spectacular. Statistically, winning 116 games is much more impressive a much bigger outlier than any world series win.
Except for the fact that the goal isn’t to win the most games in the regular season, its to win the World Series.
Its like saying a game in April where a team wins 23-0 is better than winning Game 7 of the WS 3-1.
I like to pose a different way of looking at 116 wins.
Seattle tied the Twins 1-1 in two games series before the all-star break. And they lost 1-2 the last series of the season against the Rangers.
As to the rest, they won every single series, home and away, against every single team they played in 2001.
Seattle did not just pile up wins against the bad teams. They took down every single team with a model of consistency unmatched in baseball.
Go Saints! Become a fan of facebook page here: Colts Will Lose Super Bowl 2010!