PDA

View Full Version : Waiting for a World Series


Fenway
10-20-2008, 02:40 PM
Kind of amazing that the last 4 expansion teams have now all made it to the World Series.

Montreal-Washington, Seattle, Washington-Texas still wait to go.

Longest waits?

Cubs 1945
Senators-Rangers 1962
Expos-Nationals 1969
Mariners 1977

The Rangers have not even made the LCS.

Hitmen77
10-20-2008, 05:36 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, 11 of MLB's 14 expansion teams have now won a pennant. Only the 3 you mention haven't.

The Rangers are the only franchise to never win a postseason series. Even the Expos (now Nationals) won the NLDS in 1981. For those too young to remember, there was actually a NLDS/ALDS round of playoffs in 1981 long before it was permanently added to the postseason in 1994. The reason in '81 was that baseball had a "split season" that year due to a lengthy players strike.

SOXPHILE
10-20-2008, 11:02 PM
That's another fact I use to "stick it" to Cubs fans and make them look stupid. Not only have they gone 100 years since the last World Series title, the longest in all four pro sports, but since their last (losing) appearance 63 years ago, every single team that was in existence in 1945 has since won a World Series, including the St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia A's, Boston Braves, first Washington Senators, (as the Baltimore Orioles, Oakland A's, Milwaukee & Atlanta Braves and Minnesota Twins). Not only that, but 5 other teams that came into existence no fewer than 15 years after 1945 have also won the World Series at least once: Mets, Royals, Angels, Marlins, and Diamondbacks, with the possibility of a 6th this year.

chisoxfanatic
10-20-2008, 11:11 PM
That's another fact I use to "stick it" to Cubs fans and make them look stupid. Not only have they gone 100 years since the last World Series title, the longest in all four pro sports, but since their last (losing) appearance 63 years ago, every single team that was in existence in 1945 has since won a World Series, including the St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia A's, Boston Braves, first Washington Senators, (as the Baltimore Orioles, Oakland A's, Milwaukee & Atlanta Braves and Minnesota Twins). Not only that, but 5 other teams that came into existence no fewer than 15 years after 1945 have also won the World Series at least once: Mets, Royals, Angels, Marlins, and Diamondbacks, with the possibility of a 6th this year.
But, SOXPHILE, don't you know that NEXT year will be "THE Year," so none of that will be relevant in a shade over 12 months???

oeo
10-20-2008, 11:53 PM
But, SOXPHILE, don't you know that NEXT year will be "THE Year," so none of that will be relevant in a shade over 12 months???

It's gonna happen, baby!

cub killer
10-21-2008, 01:17 AM
That's another fact I use to "stick it" to cubs fans and make them look stupid. Not only have they gone 100 years since the last World Series title, the longest in all four pro sports, but since their last (losing) appearance 63 years ago, every single team that was in existence in 1945 has since won a World Series, including the St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia A's, Boston Braves, first Washington Senators, (as the Baltimore Orioles, Oakland A's, Milwaukee & Atlanta Braves and Minnesota Twins). Not only that, but 5 other teams that came into existence no fewer than 15 years after 1945 have also won the World Series at least once: Mets, Royals, Angels, Marlins, and Diamondbacks, with the possibility of a 6th this year.

Awesome info. The scrubs' record of futility will never be matched by any other team in any other sport. Their losing has gotten to beyond-ridiculous proportions. What an embarrassment to our city.

DSpivack
10-21-2008, 03:21 AM
Awesome info. The scrubs' record of futility will never be matched by any other team in any other sport. Their losing has gotten to beyond-ridiculous proportions. What an embarrassment to our city.

They're not alone in their ineptitude.

I would put the (football) Cardinals right up there.

Hitmen77
10-21-2008, 10:03 AM
That's another fact I use to "stick it" to Cubs fans and make them look stupid. Not only have they gone 100 years since the last World Series title, the longest in all four pro sports, but since their last (losing) appearance 63 years ago, every single team that was in existence in 1945 has since won a World Series, including the St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia A's, Boston Braves, first Washington Senators, (as the Baltimore Orioles, Oakland A's, Milwaukee & Atlanta Braves and Minnesota Twins). Not only that, but 5 other teams that came into existence no fewer than 15 years after 1945 have also won the World Series at least once: Mets, Royals, Angels, Marlins, and Diamondbacks, with the possibility of a 6th this year.

Actually, it's six other teams have come into existence and won the World Series in that time. You're forgetting that the Blue Jays won the WS twice. If the Rays win it, they'll be the 7th expansion team to do it.



They're not alone in their ineptitude.

I would put the (football) Cardinals right up there.

I agree the Ariz. Cardinals are an incredibly inept franchise ......but they've won a championship since 1945 too (in '47 at Comiskey Park).

SOXPHILE
10-21-2008, 10:12 AM
Actually, it's six other teams have come into existence and won the World Series in that time. You're forgetting that the Blue Jays won the WS twice. If the Rays win it, they'll be the 7th expansion team to do it.





I agree the Ariz. Cardinals are an incredibly inept franchise ......but they've won a championship since 1945 too.


Of course ! How could I forget them, and their back to back 1992-1993 championships. I knew I was missing one !

As for the Cardinals, excellent point. Yes they are extremely inept. But, they did win the NFL Championship in 1947. Still it was a long time ago. But there isn't a whole cottage industry based on their losing history, and you don't see their entire fan base going through life whining and moaning about how they're cursed, BUT THIS IS THE YEAR ! etc. I'm actually one of the few Cardinals fans in the world. I'll wear a hat or a jersey sometimes, but I don't walk around with this whole sense of entitlement and arrogance about them. I pretty much have to keep my head low, especially if they play the Bears. I root for them, hope they can win, and that's about it. I know they suck. I just don't relish and wallow in it.

sox1970
10-21-2008, 10:31 AM
It really is amazing the Cubs haven't been to a World Series in 63 years. That's worse than not winning a World Series in 100 years.

1946-1961 Never the best of 8 teams (16 years)
1962-1968 Never the best of 10 teams (7 years)
1969-1983 Never the best of 6 teams (15 years)
1984 blew a 2-0 series lead in a best-of-5
1985-1988 Sucked
1989 Lost in NLCS
1990-1997 Sucked
1998 Lost in NLDS
1999-2002 Sucked
2003 blew 3-1 series lead to Marlins
2004 blew it the last two weeks to miss playoffs
2005-2006 Sucked
2007-2008 3 and out.

No curses. Just suckage. The 38 seasons from 1946-1983, only came in second place three times.
----

If you look at 1995-2008 as a new era, 17 of the 30 teams in baseball have made the World Series at least once. That's pretty good.

NL: ATL, FLA, SD, NY, ARZ, SF, STL, HOU, COL, PHI
AL: CLE, NY, ANA, BOS, CHI, DET, TB

Oblong
10-21-2008, 10:41 AM
It really is amazing the Cubs haven't been to a World Series in 63 years. That's worse than not winning a World Series in 100 years.

1946-1961 Never the best of 8 teams (16 years)
1962-1968 Never the best of 10 teams (7 years)
1969-1983 Never the best of 6 teams (15 years)
1984 blew a 2-0 series lead in a best-of-5
1985-1988 Sucked
1989 Lost in NLCS
1990-1997 Sucked
1998 Lost in NLDS
1999-2002 Sucked
2003 blew 3-1 series lead to Marlins
2004 blew it the last two weeks to miss playoffs
2005-2006 Sucked
2007-2008 3 and out.

No curses. Just suckage. The 38 seasons from 1946-1983, only came in second place three times.
----

If you look at 1995-2008 as a new era, 17 of the 30 teams in baseball have made the World Series at least once. That's pretty good.

NL: ATL, FLA, SD, NY, ARZ, SF, STL, HOU, COL, PHI
AL: CLE, NY, ANA, BOS, CHI, DET, TB

Wow, put it like that and it really stands out. In baseball you can usually find solace in at least making the playoffs, outside of perennial contenders like the Braves or Yankees of recent memory. But that solace wears off mighty fast when you lose a 2-0 lead in a best of 5 (1984), get swept twice(07-07), and lose a 3-1 in a best of 7(2003). There's no comfort in that.

You could realistically say that the best Cubs season since WWII was 1989.

Hitmen77
10-21-2008, 01:17 PM
Wow, put it like that and it really stands out. In baseball you can usually find solace in at least making the playoffs, outside of perennial contenders like the Braves or Yankees of recent memory. But that solace wears off mighty fast when you lose a 2-0 lead in a best of 5 (1984), get swept twice(07-07), and lose a 3-1 in a best of 7(2003). There's no comfort in that.

You could realistically say that the best Cubs season since WWII was 1989.

They've only had five 90-win seasons since WWII (1969, '84, '89, '98, and this year). The White Sox have had five since 1990 (and 3 this decade).

Lorenzo Barcelo
10-21-2008, 05:58 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, 11 of MLB's 14 expansion teams have now won a pennant. Only the 3 you mention haven't.

The Rangers are the only franchise to never win a postseason series. Even the Expos (now Nationals) won the NLDS in 1981. For those too young to remember, there was actually a NLDS/ALDS round of playoffs in 1981 long before it was permanently added to the postseason in 1994. The reason in '81 was that baseball had a "split season" that year due to a lengthy players strike.


So Cinci and St. Louis had the best overall record in their respective divisions and did not make the playoffs? How strange...

Sox4ever77
10-21-2008, 05:59 PM
So Cinci and St. Louis had the best overall record in their respective divisions and did not make the playoffs? How strange...


What's really strange is that the Reds were in the NL WEST, while the Cardinals were in the NL EAST, if though the Cinci is EAST of St. Louis.

DSpivack
10-21-2008, 06:32 PM
What's really strange is that the Reds were in the NL WEST, while the Cardinals were in the NL EAST, if though the Cinci is EAST of St. Louis.

The Atlanta Braves were in the West, too.

whitesox901
10-21-2008, 06:44 PM
The Atlanta Braves were in the West, too.

When my dad first told me that I was :o:

PaleHoser
10-21-2008, 09:09 PM
Prior to going to three divisions, the National League played an unbalanced schedule where each team played their division rivals a total of six series per season. Three were played at home and three were played on the road.

The Braves and Reds were in the N.L. West prior to going to three divisions because of the Cubs.

The Cubs didn't want a good portion of their road games starting after 9:00 pm CT, which would have happened if they played in the N.L. West. Playing teams in the Eastern Time zone put Cubs night baseball in better time slots for advertising and ratings.

It also helped that games would usually be decided in time for the 10:00 pm sports segments (which is also one of the main reasons the Sox moved their night games up from 7:30 pm to 7:00 pm about 20 years ago BTW).

So in a nutshell -

1. Wrigleys didn't want to give up their six series with the Cardinals annually, so the Cardinals had to be in the same division with the Cubs.

2. WGN didn't want to broadcast a bulk of their road games later at night because of lower ratings and advertising revenues.

Thus the Reds and Braves, who had little clout got bumped to the N.L. West.

WhiteSox5187
10-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Prior to going to three divisions, the National League played an unbalanced schedule where each team played their division rivals a total of six series per season. Three were played at home and three were played on the road.

The Braves and Reds were in the N.L. West prior to going to three divisions because of the Cubs.

The Cubs didn't want a good portion of their road games starting after 9:00 pm CT, which would have happened if they played in the N.L. West. Playing teams in the Eastern Time zone put Cubs night baseball in better time slots for advertising and ratings.

It also helped that games would usually be decided in time for the 10:00 pm sports segments (which is also one of the main reasons the Sox moved their night games up from 7:30 pm to 7:00 pm about 20 years ago BTW).

So in a nutshell -

1. Wrigleys didn't want to give up their six series with the Cardinals annually, so the Cardinals had to be in the same division with the Cubs.

2. WGN didn't want to broadcast a bulk of their road games later at night because of lower ratings and advertising revenues.

Thus the Reds and Braves, who had little clout got bumped to the N.L. West.
Didn't Fay Vincent move the Cubs to the West (for one year) and that resulted in him getting outted?

GoSox2K3
10-21-2008, 09:43 PM
Kind of amazing that the last 4 expansion teams have now all made it to the World Series.

Montreal-Washington, Seattle, Washington-Texas still wait to go.

Longest waits?

Cubs 1945
Senators-Rangers 1962
Expos-Nationals 1969
Mariners 1977

The Rangers have not even made the LCS.

Here is a list of the expansion teams and when they first made it to the World Series:

Pennant year/Team (year franchise began) *World champ years in bold
1969/Mets ('62) (also won pennant in '73, 1986, and '00)
1980/Royals ('69) (also won pennant in 1985)
1982/Brewers ('69)
1984/Padres ('69) (also won pennant in '98)
1992/Blue Jays ('77) (also won pennant in 1993)
1997/Marlins ('93) (also won pennant in 2003)
2001/D-Backs ('98)
2002/Angels ('61)
2005/Astros ('62)
2007/Rockies ('93)
2008/Rays ('98)

As you said, only the Rangers, Nationals, and Mariners haven't made it to the Fall Classic.

Sox4ever77
10-21-2008, 09:50 PM
Prior to going to three divisions, the National League played an unbalanced schedule where each team played their division rivals a total of six series per season. Three were played at home and three were played on the road.

The Braves and Reds were in the N.L. West prior to going to three divisions because of the Cubs.

The Cubs didn't want a good portion of their road games starting after 9:00 pm CT, which would have happened if they played in the N.L. West. Playing teams in the Eastern Time zone put Cubs night baseball in better time slots for advertising and ratings.

It also helped that games would usually be decided in time for the 10:00 pm sports segments (which is also one of the main reasons the Sox moved their night games up from 7:30 pm to 7:00 pm about 20 years ago BTW).

So in a nutshell -

1. Wrigleys didn't want to give up their six series with the Cardinals annually, so the Cardinals had to be in the same division with the Cubs.

2. WGN didn't want to broadcast a bulk of their road games later at night because of lower ratings and advertising revenues.

Thus the Reds and Braves, who had little clout got bumped to the N.L. West.

Didn't realize that the Wrigleys had that much power in baseball, back in the mid to late 60's?

When they had the two divisions, I was always pissed that there couldn't be an all Chicago and all NY or LA playoffs. Since the Sox and Angels and Cubs and Mets were in the same division.

Sox4ever77
10-21-2008, 09:52 PM
The Atlanta Braves were in the West, too.

The NFL didn't know it's geography either. They put both the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints in the NFC West.

GoSox2K3
10-21-2008, 11:57 PM
...every single team that was in existence in 1945 has since won a World Series, including the St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia A's, Boston Braves, first Washington Senators, (as the Baltimore Orioles, Oakland A's, Milwaukee & Atlanta Braves and Minnesota Twins). Not only that, but 5 other teams that came into existence no fewer than 15 years after 1945 have also won the World Series at least once: Mets, Royals, Angels, Marlins, and Diamondbacks, with the possibility of a 6th this year.

Correct. Here are the franchises you mentioned that have won their first-ever World Series title since '45:

1955: Brooklyn Dodgers (and 5 more titles after moving to L.A.)
1966: Baltimore Orioles (formerly St. Louis Browns) (3 titles total)
1969: NY Mets (2 titles total)
1980: Philadelphia Phillies
1985: Kansas City Royals
1992: Toronto Blue Jays (2 titles total)
1997: Florida Marlins (2 titles total)
2001: Arizona Diamondbacks
2002: Anaheim Angels

Plus first World Series titles for franchises in a new city after moving:
1957: Milwaukee Braves (formerly Boston Braves)
1972: Oakland A's (formerly Philadephia and K.C. A's) (4 titles total in Oak)
1987: Minnesota Twins (formerly Wash. Senators) (2 titles total in Minn)
1995: Atlanta Braves

* The Giants last won the WS in 1954 when they were in New York. They have yet to win one in S.F.

cub killer
10-22-2008, 02:42 AM
Prior to going to three divisions, the National League played an unbalanced schedule where each team played their division rivals a total of six series per season. Three were played at home and three were played on the road.

The Braves and Reds were in the N.L. West prior to going to three divisions because of the Cubs.

The Cubs didn't want a good portion of their road games starting after 9:00 pm CT, which would have happened if they played in the N.L. West. Playing teams in the Eastern Time zone put Cubs night baseball in better time slots for advertising and ratings.

It also helped that games would usually be decided in time for the 10:00 pm sports segments (which is also one of the main reasons the Sox moved their night games up from 7:30 pm to 7:00 pm about 20 years ago BTW).

So in a nutshell -

1. Wrigleys didn't want to give up their six series with the Cardinals annually, so the Cardinals had to be in the same division with the Cubs.

2. WGN didn't want to broadcast a bulk of their road games later at night because of lower ratings and advertising revenues.

Thus the Reds and Braves, who had little clout got bumped to the N.L. West.

Plus the White Sox were in the AL West while the Brewers were in the AL East. It may not be by much, but Milwaukee is further west than Chicago.

The Sox face the same problems the cubs do in terms of ad revenue and ratings, so why do the cubs get to be in the Eastern Division (where they didn't belong) while the Sox were stuck in the West (where they didn't belong). Even back then, the Sox got the shaft.

Frater Perdurabo
10-22-2008, 07:02 AM
The NFL didn't know it's geography either. They put both the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints in the NFC West.

That's because the NFL privileges the Dallas Cowboys, and wanted the Cowboys to have two games each year against Washington, Philly and New York. In fact, that's why the Cowboys remain in the NFC East, even after realignment to four divisions. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. They need to go to the South, with Atlanta going to the East.

DrCrawdad
10-22-2008, 09:11 AM
Of course ! How could I forget them, and their back to back 1992-1993 championships. I knew I was missing one !

As for the Cardinals, excellent point. Yes they are extremely inept. But, they did win the NFL Championship in 1947. Still it was a long time ago. But there isn't a whole cottage industry based on their losing history, and you don't see their entire fan base going through life whining and moaning about how they're cursed, BUT THIS IS THE YEAR ! etc. I'm actually one of the few Cardinals fans in the world. I'll wear a hat or a jersey sometimes, but I don't walk around with this whole sense of entitlement and arrogance about them. I pretty much have to keep my head low, especially if they play the Bears. I root for them, hope they can win, and that's about it. I know they suck. I just don't relish and wallow in it.

Sounds like you could be related to me. My dad was a Cardinals fan, as are all of his brothers and my paternal cousins, but he did not foist that on me (fortunately?).

palehozenychicty
10-22-2008, 09:23 AM
That's because the NFL privileges the Dallas Cowboys, and wanted the Cowboys to have two games each year against Washington, Philly and New York. In fact, that's why the Cowboys remain in the NFC East, even after realignment to four divisions. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. They need to go to the South, with Atlanta going to the East.

I always felt the same way.

johnr1note
10-22-2008, 09:32 AM
Another interesting point about how really BAD the Cubs have been since their last trip to the World Series is how great they were prior to that point.

I did some research some time ago trying to prove a point to my Cubs fan friends. My hypothesis was the Cubs were a much better team than the Sox for the first half of the century, when the Sox were a poor team because of the after-effects of the Black Sox scandal, and that in the second half, it was the Sox that was the far superior team.

As I started to look at the numbers, I decided to use 1947 as the dividing line, rather than 1945 (the last time the Cubs went to the World Series) because the Cubs actually had a competitive year in 1946, and didn't drop into the lower division until the 1947 season.

The White Sox proved to a model of consistency. For 1901-1946, the team had an overall record of slightly over .500, and ranked 7th best among the 16 MLB teams in existence at that time. Three trips to the Series, two titles. From 1947-2008, the Sox were pretty much the same -- a .510 overall percentage, once again 7th overall best among all MLB teams, with 2 trips to the Series, one title. A model of consistency.

The Cubs proved to be a study in contrasts.

From 1901-1946, the Cubs were literally a juggernaut. Only two other teams in MLB had an overall better record than the Cubs -- the Yankees and the Giants. If you take their overall winning percentage from that era and compare it to today's schedule of 162 games, the Cubs would have averaged 90 wins a season over that time frame based on a 162 game schedule. That's AVERAGE! They won the pennant 10 times, winning the title twice (1907 and 1908). That's an average, though, of going to the World Series about once every 5 years or so.

Starting in 1947, though, the bottom drops out for the Cubs. Their overall winning percentage is dead last among the 16 MLB teams that played prior to expansion, and only Texas, San Diego, and Tampa Bay have overall winning percentages worse than the Cubs, but its very close, and as pointed out, at least San Diego and Tampa have won the pennant.

The contrast is jarring. The Cubs truly are one of the most pathetic organizations in pro sports for nearly 70 years.

ode to veeck
10-22-2008, 12:29 PM
Another interesting point about how really BAD the Cubs have been since their last trip to the World Series is how great they were prior to that point.

I did some research some time ago trying to prove a point to my Cubs fan friends. My hypothesis was the Cubs were a much better team than the Sox for the first half of the century, when the Sox were a poor team because of the after-effects of the Black Sox scandal, and that in the second half, it was the Sox that was the far superior team.

As I started to look at the numbers, I decided to use 1947 as the dividing line, rather than 1945 (the last time the Cubs went to the World Series) because the Cubs actually had a competitive year in 1946, and didn't drop into the lower division until the 1947 season.

The White Sox proved to a model of consistency. For 1901-1946, the team had an overall record of slightly over .500, and ranked 7th best among the 16 MLB teams in existence at that time. Three trips to the Series, two titles. From 1947-2008, the Sox were pretty much the same -- a .510 overall percentage, once again 7th overall best among all MLB teams, with 2 trips to the Series, one title. A model of consistency.

The Cubs proved to be a study in contrasts.

From 1901-1946, the Cubs were literally a juggernaut. Only two other teams in MLB had an overall better record than the Cubs -- the Yankees and the Giants. If you take their overall winning percentage from that era and compare it to today's schedule of 162 games, the Cubs would have averaged 90 wins a season over that time frame based on a 162 game schedule. That's AVERAGE! They won the pennant 10 times, winning the title twice (1907 and 1908). That's an average, though, of going to the World Series about once every 5 years or so.

Starting in 1947, though, the bottom drops out for the Cubs. Their overall winning percentage is dead last among the 16 MLB teams that played prior to expansion, and only Texas, San Diego, and Tampa Bay have overall winning percentages worse than the Cubs, but its very close, and as pointed out, at least San Diego and Tampa have won the pennant.

The contrast is jarring. The Cubs truly are one of the most pathetic organizations in pro sports for nearly 70 years.

you also have to look at more naturally occurring periods
the cubs were very strong most years up to to '46
the cubs were phenomenally pathetic '47-'68 and intermittently pathetic and competitive since--looking at '47 to date is overly weighed by the lost decades of '47-'68 and by their now famous many chokes: '69, '84, '89, '03, '08, but even if you look '69 to now, or last 20 years to now, sox have generally been more competitive more often in those stretches

the sox were fairly competitive from inception to 1918
the sox suffered 1919 to say early 50s
sox early 50s to late 60s were very competitive, just behind those damn yankees
the sox had some dismal years end of 60s to late 70s
the sox have been intermittently successful/competitive since late 70s or so and somewhat more so last 18 years of that period where they have been consistently competitive for playoffs nearly every year
the sox finally won 1st title in 80 years in '05

Eddo144
10-22-2008, 12:58 PM
The Atlanta Braves were in the West, too.
Redacted text: [That's an artifact from when the Braves played in Milwaukee, remember.]

And, as an interesting fact, Atlanta is slightly west of Cincinnati. Look at a map, it seems wrong, but it's not.

EDIT: The Braves moved to Atlanta before the divisional alignment took effect. I have redacted my previous statement. The fact that Atlanta is west of Cincinnati is still true, however.

Eddo144
10-22-2008, 01:01 PM
That's because the NFL privileges the Dallas Cowboys, and wanted the Cowboys to have two games each year against Washington, Philly and New York. In fact, that's why the Cowboys remain in the NFC East, even after realignment to four divisions. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. They need to go to the South, with Atlanta going to the East.
Actually, Carolina should move to the east. The AFC has similar issues as well, with Miami keeping rivalries with the eastern division teams, which forces Baltimore into the North and Indianapolis into the South.

True geographic alignment would probably be:
NFC
East: CAR, NYG, PHI, WAS
South: ATL, DAL, NO, TAM
North: CHI, DET, GB, MIN
West: ARI, STL, SF, SEA

AFC
East: BAL, BUF, NE, NYJ
South: HOU, JAC, MIA, TEN
North: CIN, CLE, IND, PIT
West: DEN, KC, OAK, SD

EDIT: Remember, though, that the NFL does favor tradition and rivalries more than MLB does. That's the reason the Dolphins and Cowboys are misaligned. I'm not entirely sure why Dallas was in the same division as Washington and Philadelphia in the first place, though.

ode to veeck
10-22-2008, 01:26 PM
True geographic alignment would probably be:
NFC
East: CAR, NYG, PHI, WAS
South: ATL, DAL, NO, TAM
North: CHI, DET, GB, MIN
West: ARI, STL, SF, SEA

AFC
East: BAL, BUF, NE, NYJ
South: HOU, JAC, MIA, TEN
North: CIN, CLE, IND, PIT
West: DEN, KC, OAK, SD
.

that would make entirely too much sense

PaleHoser
10-22-2008, 01:45 PM
For some good reading on what has gone on in ownership in the last 40 years, I recommend the following books:

"Veeck as in Wreck" and "The Hustler's Handbook" by Bill Veeck
"The Lords of the Realm" by John Helyar.
"A Whole Different Ball Game" by Marvin Miller.

Regarding how the White Sox got put in the A.L. West, they were put there in 1969. Milwaukee was originally in the A.L. West until 1972 when the Senators moved to Texas and became the Rangers.

There were lawsuits related to the move of the Seattle Pilots to Milwaukee in 1970, which ultimately lead to the Mariners expansion franchise being awarded in 1976. Prior to that, there was alot of talk that the Sox would be sold by the Allyns and moved to Seattle to make the lawsuits go away. There would be no point to moving the Sox to the east of they would be moved.

Bill Veeck saved the Sox for Chicago when he bought the club the second time. God Bless Him.

Chez
10-22-2008, 01:57 PM
Didn't Fay Vincent move the Cubs to the West (for one year) and that resulted in him getting outted?

No. Never. And technically Vincent was ousted, not outed. Not that there's anything wrong with it. :smile:

nccwsfan
10-22-2008, 08:41 PM
Didn't Fay Vincent move the Cubs to the West (for one year) and that resulted in him getting outted?

He proposed this in 1992, which was one of several things that led to his "ouster" (thanks Chez!). The realignment plan was geographically better than the 1969-1991 layout but for the reasons listed in other posts it was soundly rejected.

I know I'm getting older when several WSI posters are too young recall the pre-94' divisional alignment. :o:

nasox
10-23-2008, 01:40 AM
He proposed this in 1992, which was one of several things that led to his "ouster" (thanks Chez!). The realignment plan was geographically better than the 1969-1991 layout but for the reasons listed in other posts it was soundly rejected.

I know I'm getting older when several WSI posters are too young recall the pre-94' divisional alignment. :o:

I don't recall it, but I'm only 20.

I love threads like these. I find the history of baseball so interesting.

bgsoxfan
10-23-2008, 03:37 AM
I too am a sick sick die hard of the Chicago - St. Louis - Arizona Cardinals:(:. Nice to know I'm not alone. I'm planning my trip next week to watch them play the Rams next week. It makes me sick how ESPN gushes about Boston and HBO makes a movie about the Cubs and Red Sox, while we just sucked it up for 88 years in oblivion, as have the Big Red for 60 years. Not loveable losers, just losers. :(: That is what it's like being a southsider:smile:

cub killer
10-23-2008, 09:01 AM
Regarding how the White Sox got put in the A.L. West, they were put there in 1969. Milwaukee was originally in the A.L. West until 1972 when the Senators moved to Texas and became the Rangers.

There were lawsuits related to the move of the Seattle Pilots to Milwaukee in 1970, which ultimately lead to the Mariners expansion franchise being awarded in 1976. Prior to that, there was alot of talk that the Sox would be sold by the Allyns and moved to Seattle to make the lawsuits go away. There would be no point to moving the Sox to the east of they would be moved.

Bill Veeck saved the Sox for Chicago when he bought the club the second time. God Bless Him.

Ok, thanx 4 the info. MLB should have put the Sox in the East once they knew the Sox were staying in Chicago. Imagine that, then the Sox would have had a different opponent than Baltimore in the 1983 playoffs and maybe would have gone all the way that year. A WS win in '83 could have absorbed the hit our fan base took in 1984 and things may have turned out alot differently. Not to mention we'd have more of a rivalry with Boston and the Yankees, which would have been interesting.

ode to veeck
10-23-2008, 09:22 AM
Ok, thanx 4 the info. MLB should have put the Sox in the East once they knew the Sox were staying in Chicago. Imagine that, then the Sox would have had a different opponent than Baltimore in the 1983 playoffs and maybe would have gone all the way that year. A WS win in '83 could have absorbed the hit our fan base took in 1984 and things may have turned out alot differently. Not to mention we'd have more of a rivalry with Boston and the Yankees, which would have been interesting.

we did have a rivalry with the Red Sox and the Yankees prior to divisional play. In the early and mid 60s you had to buy the single game seats for the Yankees by waiting in line the day they went on sale or they were gone

Eddo144
10-23-2008, 09:54 AM
I too am a sick sick die hard of the Chicago - St. Louis - Arizona Cardinals:(:. Nice to know I'm not alone. I'm planning my trip next week to watch them play the Rams next week. It makes me sick how ESPN gushes about Boston and HBO makes a movie about the Cubs and Red Sox, while we just sucked it up for 88 years in oblivion, as have the Big Red for 60 years. Not loveable losers, just losers. :(: That is what it's like being a southsider:smile:
It always shocks me how little attention the Cardinals get, especially in the NFL, which pushes tradition and history unlike any other league (except for maybe the NHL, with the Original Six).

Remember, the Cardinals are the oldest NFL franchise (barely older than the Bears). Interestingly enough, they started out as the Racine Cardinals, named after the street here in Chicago (on which they played), not the city in Wisconsin. "Cardinals" comes from the color of their jerseys, which were University of Chicago hand-me-downs, not the bird. (Pro-football-reference has a more detailed history (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=577) of the franchise (near the end of the post).)

It's a shame such a historic franchise is so forgotten. I guess that's what bad ownership will do for you (though the Blackhawks don't really suffer from this as much).

Hitmen77
10-23-2008, 10:33 AM
Ok, thanx 4 the info. MLB should have put the Sox in the East once they knew the Sox were staying in Chicago. Imagine that, then the Sox would have had a different opponent than Baltimore in the 1983 playoffs and maybe would have gone all the way that year. A WS win in '83 could have absorbed the hit our fan base took in 1984 and things may have turned out alot differently. Not to mention we'd have more of a rivalry with Boston and the Yankees, which would have been interesting.

If the Sox had been in the AL East, they also would have won division titles in 1972 and 1990. On the other hand, they would have finished behind the Blue Jays in 1993.

jdm2662
10-23-2008, 11:06 AM
It always shocks me how little attention the Cardinals get, especially in the NFL, which pushes tradition and history unlike any other league (except for maybe the NHL, with the Original Six).

Remember, the Cardinals are the oldest NFL franchise (barely older than the Bears). Interestingly enough, they started out as the Racine Cardinals, named after the street here in Chicago (on which they played), not the city in Wisconsin. "Cardinals" comes from the color of their jerseys, which were University of Chicago hand-me-downs, not the bird. (Pro-football-reference has a more detailed history (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=577) of the franchise (near the end of the post).)

It's a shame such a historic franchise is so forgotten. I guess that's what bad ownership will do for you (though the Blackhawks don't really suffer from this as much).

Let's see.

The team has moved TWICE since 1960.
They don't have a marketing hype machine running the team.
They don't have many long suffering/annoying fans.
They've won one playoff game since 1947, and have made the playoffs once since 1982.

How the football Cardinals were forgotten is beyond me...