PDA

View Full Version : For The Decade - Winning Seasons / Playoff Appearances


Lip Man 1
10-06-2009, 09:54 PM
Winning Seasons…

For the decade that’s just ended its final regular season game. Here’s how they stack up relative to each other.

10 winning seasons:
Yankees (current streak 17 consecutive years. Last losing season was 1992. The 17 straight years ties the White Sox (1951-1967) for the 3rd longest streak in MLB history) 9 Playoff Appearances
Boston (current streak 12 consecutive years. Last losing season was 1997) 6 Playoff Appearances
*Money talks don’t it?

9 winning seasons:
St. Louis (only losing season in decade was 2007) 7 Playoff Appearances
Dodgers (only losing season in decade was 2005) 4 Playoff Appearances

8 winning seasons:
Atlanta (losing seasons in 2006 and 2008) 6 Playoff Appearances
Angels (last losing season was 2003) 6 Playoff Appearances
Philadelphia (last losing season was 2002) 3 Playoff Appearances
Minnesota (had a stretch of six straight winning seasons 2001 through 2006) 5 Playoff Appearances

7 winning seasons:
White Sox (two of the last three years, 2007 & 2009 have been losing one’s) 3 Playoff Appearances
Oakland (last winning season was 2006) 5 Playoff Appearances
Houston (two of the last three years, 2007 & 2009 have been losing one’s) 3 Playoff Appearances

6 winning seasons:
Mets 2 Playoff Appearances
San Francisco (2009 was first winning season since 2004) 3 Playoff Appearances
Arizona 3 Playoff Appearances
Cubs (last losing season was 2006) 3 Playoff Appearances
Seattle (missed playoffs twice in decade despite winning over 90 games) 2 Playoff Appearances

5 winning seasons:
Toronto 0 Playoff Appearances
Florida (surprisingly they have had winning seasons in five of the last seven years) 1 Playoff Appearance

4 winning seasons:
Cleveland (for a franchise that has a hard time even having a winning season they get a lot of pre season publicity about how they’ll be going to the postseason from the national media.) 2 Playoff Appearances
San Diego (all winning seasons came between 2004 and 2007) 2 Playoff Appearances

3 winning seasons:
Colorado (two of the last three years have been winning one’s) 2 Playoff Appearances
Detroit (three of the last four years have been winning one’s) 1 Playoff Appearance

2 winning seasons:
Montreal / Washington (both came when the franchise was in Montreal in 2002 & 2003) 0 Playoff Appearances
Texas (winning seasons in 2004 & 2009) 0 Playoff Appearances
Milwaukee (winning seasons in 2007 & 2008) 1 Playoff Appearance
Tampa (winning seasons in 2008 & 2009) 1 Playoff Appearance

1 winning season:
Cincinnati (only winning season came in 2000) 0 Playoff Appearances
Kansas City (only winning season came in 2003) 0 Playoff Appearances

NO winning seasons:
Baltimore (last winning season came in 1997. Current losing season streak stands at 12 years.)
Pittsburgh (last winning season came in 1992. Current losing season streak stands at 17 years, a major league record.)

13 National League teams made the postseason in the decade, 10 American League ones did. The Yankees and Red Sox accounted for 15 of the 40 available spots in the A.L. over the decade; 37.5%.

Finally the White Sox remain the only one out of the original 16 (pre expansion) teams to have never made the post season in consecutive years.
A.L. original teams: St.Louis/Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia/Kansas City / Oakland, New York, Washington/Minnesota.
N.L. original teams: Chicago, Cincinnati, Brooklyn/Los Angeles, Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York/San Francisco, St. Louis.

Lip

PKalltheway
10-06-2009, 10:02 PM
Wow, I didn't realize that the Dodgers have had nine winning seasons since 2000. :o:

ode to veeck
10-07-2009, 12:15 AM
wow, the Pirates have been really dismal for a long time ... and they were such a powerhouse back in the 60s and 70s, who could forget their comeback WS win (from down 3-1) over the Earl Weaver's favored O's

PKalltheway
10-07-2009, 12:57 AM
Also....

The White Sox finished 111-68 against the Kansas City Royals this decade, good for a .620 winning percentage, their best record against any AL team in this decade. They also finished 111-69 against the Tigers from 2000-2009, which is good for a .617 winning percentage.

Their best overall record against any opponent since 2000 (with a minimum of 10 games played) was against the Cincinnati Reds. The Sox went 11-1 against them.

The team that seemed to beat the Sox more often than not was, you guessed it, the Oakland A's. They finished 33-54 against them in this decade, which translates to a .379 win percentage.

More here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/head2head.cgi?teams=CHW&from=2000&to=2009&submit=Submit

TommyJohn
10-07-2009, 09:14 AM
Sox didn't have a bad decade-not Yankee-esque to be sure, but an improvement over previous years. I'll take it over the 70s. Hope that even better things happen starting in 2010.

asindc
10-07-2009, 09:27 AM
Winning Seasons…

For the decade that’s just ended its final regular season game. Here’s how they stack up relative to each other.

10 winning seasons:
Yankees (current streak 17 consecutive years. Last losing season was 1992. The 17 straight years ties the White Sox (1951-1967) for the 3rd longest streak in MLB history) 9 Playoff Appearances
Boston (current streak 12 consecutive years. Last losing season was 1997) 6 Playoff Appearances
*Money talks don’t it?

9 winning seasons:
St. Louis (only losing season in decade was 2007) 7 Playoff Appearances
Dodgers (only losing season in decade was 2005) 4 Playoff Appearances

8 winning seasons:
Atlanta (losing seasons in 2006 and 2008) 6 Playoff Appearances
Angels (last losing season was 2003) 6 Playoff Appearances
Philadelphia (last losing season was 2002) 3 Playoff Appearances
Minnesota (had a stretch of six straight winning seasons 2001 through 2006) 5 Playoff Appearances

7 winning seasons:
White Sox (two of the last three years, 2007 & 2009 have been losing one’s) 3 Playoff Appearances
Oakland (last winning season was 2006) 5 Playoff Appearances
Houston (two of the last three years, 2007 & 2009 have been losing one’s) 3 Playoff Appearances

6 winning seasons:
Mets 2 Playoff Appearances
San Francisco (2009 was first winning season since 2004) 3 Playoff Appearances
Arizona 3 Playoff Appearances
Cubs (last losing season was 2006) 3 Playoff Appearances
Seattle (missed playoffs twice in decade despite winning over 90 games) 2 Playoff Appearances

5 winning seasons:
Toronto 0 Playoff Appearances
Florida (surprisingly they have had winning seasons in five of the last seven years) 1 Playoff Appearance

4 winning seasons:
Cleveland (for a franchise that has a hard time even having a winning season they get a lot of pre season publicity about how they’ll be going to the postseason from the national media.) 2 Playoff Appearances
San Diego (all winning seasons came between 2004 and 2007) 2 Playoff Appearances

3 winning seasons:
Colorado (two of the last three years have been winning one’s) 2 Playoff Appearances
Detroit (three of the last four years have been winning one’s) 1 Playoff Appearance

2 winning seasons:
Montreal / Washington (both came when the franchise was in Montreal in 2002 & 2003) 0 Playoff Appearances
Texas (winning seasons in 2004 & 2009) 0 Playoff Appearances
Milwaukee (winning seasons in 2007 & 2008) 1 Playoff Appearance
Tampa (winning seasons in 2008 & 2009) 1 Playoff Appearance

1 winning season:
Cincinnati (only winning season came in 2000) 0 Playoff Appearances
Kansas City (only winning season came in 2003) 0 Playoff Appearances

NO winning seasons:
Baltimore (last winning season came in 1997. Current losing season streak stands at 12 years.)
Pittsburgh (last winning season came in 1992. Current losing season streak stands at 17 years, a major league record.)

13 National League teams made the postseason in the decade, 10 American League ones did. The Yankees and Red Sox accounted for 15 of the 40 available spots in the A.L. over the decade; 37.5%.

Finally the White Sox remain the only one out of the original 16 (pre expansion) teams to have never made the post season in consecutive years.
A.L. original teams: St.Louis/Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia/Kansas City / Oakland, New York, Washington/Minnesota.
N.L. original teams: Chicago, Cincinnati, Brooklyn/Los Angeles, Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York/San Francisco, St. Louis.

Lip

This is the monkey I really want the organization to get off its back. That's why I always chafe at comments like, "well, if they are just going to stumble into the playoffs and lose, what's the point?" The point is that you want to build a reputation for sustained excellence. I really thought 2006 was the year, but Buehrle picked a bad year to have his worst. That said, I would rather have our decade than Minny's.

It is difficult to argue against the thought that this has been the best decade in franchise history. Something to keep in mind when evaluating the overall records of KW and Ozzie.

37.5%? Yeah, there is no need to re-structure the financial makeup of MLB.

Hitmen77
10-07-2009, 10:11 AM
Great summary, Lip. Thanks for posting this.

Yeah, no doubt money talks. Regardless of what the NYY/Bos unchecked spending apologist say, they have turned the AL into almost a two-team league with only teams that catch lightning in a bottle (like the 08 Rays) able to get past them. Despite what ESPN thinks, there is no way, this is good for the game. Once you get past NYY, Bos, and LAA, you have to drop all the way to 12th in MLB attendance to find the next best drawing AL team. Perhaps it's because, at least in the NL, many more fans feel their team actually has a chance at the post season.

Yeah, I know the Cubs and Mets spend money and "still suck"....that's the greatest argument of people who defend the Yankees/BoSox spending ways. But that still doesn't mean that the Yankees and Red Sox aren't buying their way to perpetual AL dominance. But, that's okay because Americans only care about these two teams anyway. Yes, I know the Red Sox are great at developing internal talent too, but it must be nice to be able to pour money into your scouting and farm system AND still have money to buy the free agents needed to put you over the top. Other teams with good scouting/farm systems just can't do that.....just ask the Twins and A's how many Commissioner Trophies they have this decade.

wow, the Pirates have been really dismal for a long time ... and they were such a powerhouse back in the 60s and 70s, who could forget their comeback WS win (from down 3-1) over the Earl Weaver's favored O's

It's incredible that the O's have been that bad for that long. What a poorly run franchise! It's just stunning to see all the empty seats at Camden Yards nowadays. That park used to give the O's automatic huge crowds!


3 winning seasons:
Colorado (two of the last three years have been winning one’s) 2 Playoff Appearances
Detroit (three of the last four years have been winning one’s) 1 Playoff Appearance

Lip

:o: Quick, run from the grammar police! .....:tongue:

AZChiSoxFan
10-07-2009, 11:22 AM
It's incredible that the O's have been that bad for that long. What a poorly run franchise! It's just stunning to see all the empty seats at Camden Yards nowadays. That park used to give the O's automatic huge crowds!




Yes, sadly, Peter Angelos has single-handedly turned into mush this once proud franchise.

AZChiSoxFan
10-07-2009, 11:23 AM
Great info Lip, thanks for posting.

dickallen15
10-07-2009, 11:38 AM
Also....

The White Sox finished 111-68 against the Kansas City Royals this decade, good for a .620 winning percentage, their best record against any AL team in this decade. They also finished 111-69 against the Tigers from 2000-2009, which is good for a .617 winning percentage.

Their best overall record against any opponent since 2000 (with a minimum of 10 games played) was against the Cincinnati Reds. The Sox went 11-1 against them.

The team that seemed to beat the Sox more often than not was, you guessed it, the Oakland A's. They finished 33-54 against them in this decade, which translates to a .379 win percentage.

More here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/head2head.cgi?teams=CHW&from=2000&to=2009&submit=Submit
So the Sox are basically .500 vs. everyone except Det and KC this decade. Well, if you're going to destroy teams, divisional opponents are the teams to destroy I guess.

hawkjt
10-07-2009, 11:49 AM
Sox should have tied the Twins with 8 winning seasons this year...sigh.
Division titles for the AL CENTRAL...
Twins -5
Sox - 3
Tribe- 2
Tigers and Royals....0 ...ouch.

Twins should have been contracted:D:

asindc
10-07-2009, 12:04 PM
Sox should have tied the Twins with 8 winning seasons this year...sigh.
Division titles for the AL CENTRAL...
Twins -5
Sox - 3
Tribe- 2
Tigers and Royals....0 ...ouch.

Twins should have been contracted:D:

This should have been:
Sox-4
Twinkees-2
Tigers-2
Tribe-2
Royals-0

Tigers fans must feel sick today. One of my best buddies is a Tigers fan. I haven't had the heart to even call him yet.

Jimmy Piersall
10-07-2009, 12:06 PM
Sox should have tied the Twins with 8 winning seasons this year...sigh.
Division titles for the AL CENTRAL...
Twins -5
Sox - 3
Tribe- 2
Tigers and Royals....0 ...ouch.

Twins should have been contracted:D:

There's still time for this.

doublem23
10-07-2009, 12:50 PM
Does anyone really care about "winning seasons?" Isn't this a relic of the old days when only 2 teams made the play-offs, so the other 14 had to find solace in something thoroughly meaningless? I guess would anyone have felt better about this White Sox season had they won 3 more meanigless games and finished 82-80? Or does anyone take pride in the 2004 White Sox, who finished 2 games above .500?

asindc
10-07-2009, 12:52 PM
Does anyone really care about "winning seasons?" Isn't this a relic of the old days when only 2 teams made the play-offs, so the other 14 had to find solace in something thoroughly meaningless? I guess would anyone have felt better about this White Sox season had they won 3 more meanigless games and finished 82-80? Or does anyone take pride in the 2004 White Sox, who finished 2 games above .500?

Yes.

asindc
10-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Does anyone really care about "winning seasons?" Isn't this a relic of the old days when only 2 teams made the play-offs, so the other 14 had to find solace in something thoroughly meaningless? I guess would anyone have felt better about this White Sox season had they won 3 more meanigless games and finished 82-80? Or does anyone take pride in the 2004 White Sox, who finished 2 games above .500?

No.

asindc
10-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Does anyone really care about "winning seasons?" Isn't this a relic of the old days when only 2 teams made the play-offs, so the other 14 had to find solace in something thoroughly meaningless? I guess would anyone have felt better about this White Sox season had they won 3 more meanigless games and finished 82-80? Or does anyone take pride in the 2004 White Sox, who finished 2 games above .500?

Yes.

doublem23
10-07-2009, 01:08 PM
Yes.

No.

Yes.

Given your age, I guess it is a generational thing. I'm 26, I barely remember baseball before the 3-divisional format, I really don't see much of a difference if a team finished 82-80 or 79-83.

Marqhead
10-07-2009, 01:15 PM
Given your age, I guess it is a generational thing. I'm 26, I barely remember baseball before the 3-divisional format, I really don't see much of a difference if a team finished 82-80 or 79-83.

Maybe not so much the marginal finishes as you point out, but I think it's pretty nice to be able to say your team was one that consistently won year in and year out, especially if you are attending a lot of those games.

Obviously the importance of playoff appearances and titles can't be overstated, but winning is certainly something to be proud of.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2009, 02:05 PM
I agree with Asin on all counts. It's a matter of pride to be able to say, "at least we won more than we lost."

And the 2004 White Sox went 83-79, considering they lost Ordonez and Thomas for most of the season that's something they should have taken pride in...just like in 2001 when the Sox became only the 2nd team in MLB history to be 15 under at one point in the season, yet rebounded to have a winning one at 83-79 despite a half dozen pitching injuries and Thomas only playing in 30 games or so.

Little things mean a lot and sometimes numbers can be misleading... as in 2001 and 2004.

Lip

Noneck
10-07-2009, 02:15 PM
A winning season can be important and very meaningful but that depends on the situation. If a team is coming off of a playoff appearance and does not contend in the month of Sept. , ending up .500 doesn't mean much. I really don't think the cubs or rays are now any more excited about ending the season over .500 than if they ended with the Sox record.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2009, 02:30 PM
NoNeck:

But in the Rays case it sure as hell makes it easier for them to sell off season tickets and market more effectively no?

Compare that to say Baltimore or Pittsburgh for example or Oakland who hasn't had a winning season since 2006.

Lip

Noneck
10-07-2009, 02:41 PM
NoNeck:

But in the Rays case it sure as hell makes it easier for them to sell off season tickets and market more effectively no?

Compare that to say Baltimore or Pittsburgh for example or Oakland who hasn't had a winning season since 2006.

Lip

Lip, Do you really think the rays will sell more tics with a 84-78 record rather than a 79-83 and never really being in a division race this September?

1989
10-07-2009, 03:33 PM
The more losses we have, the more likely we are to get a better draft pick. I mean, a winning season this year would have been nice, but in this instance, we got a team that we all know is incredibly talented and in a good spot, so a losing season isn't all that bad. Especially since all KW has to make is a couple of minor moves and this team will win the division next year.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Noneck:

Yes...absolutely as per any team. They'll market that factor to death...'back to back winning seasons!!! for the RAYS!!!!! get your tickets now...FINALLY winning baseball in Central Florida' etc.

I can only tell you I've talked to marketing folks with the Sox and any positive you can take out of a season is used to promote and try to market from a ticket sold standpoint at least that's what they tell me.

Lip

asindc
10-07-2009, 05:47 PM
A winning season can be important and very meaningful but that depends on the situation. If a team is coming off of a playoff appearance and does not contend in the month of Sept. , ending up .500 doesn't mean much. I really don't think the cubs or rays are now any more excited about ending the season over .500 than if they ended with the Sox record.

I think you are looking at this from a hardcore fan's perspective. Most of us here know that the three extra victories don't make any real difference, but for many casual fans, the perception does. Which is why, as Lip says, any team will use that as a marketing strategy despite the fact it doesn't mean much from a purely competitive standpoint. As always, I'm all for anything that helps improve the team, and that includes selling more tickets.

jdm2662
10-07-2009, 05:58 PM
Does anyone really care about "winning seasons?" Isn't this a relic of the old days when only 2 teams made the play-offs, so the other 14 had to find solace in something thoroughly meaningless? I guess would anyone have felt better about this White Sox season had they won 3 more meanigless games and finished 82-80? Or does anyone take pride in the 2004 White Sox, who finished 2 games above .500?

It depends on the situation. As already mentioned, in 2001 and 2004, those teams had lots of significant injuries, and could've easily thrown in the towel. However, they fought hard to get to 83 wins. Teams that are badly undermanned and overachive per say I will always be behind. However, teams like the 2003 and 2006 ones, I'm not too proud of. While the Tigers and Twins surge was unexpected in 2006, there was no reason for the 2003 to fade as they did.

I'm also a little older than you and was first introduced to the White Sox in 1985. They won 85 games that year and were decent overall. The next four years? Um, you can understand why some people are happy over winning seasons.

That said, had the Sox won 82 games, they probably would've beaten the Twins at least once in that September series. so yes, I would've been very happy. :redneck

Noneck
10-07-2009, 07:12 PM
Lip and asindc,

It appears that I misunderstood what you both felt is the importance of having a winning season. I was thinking in the terms of the players and management feeling good about winning more than they lost, no matter what the teams expectations were.

I can understand the marketing factor, being able to promote a winning season to the casual fan. If this does indeed increase the fan base and ticket sales, I will now be in your camp and 83 will be a magic number for me.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2009, 07:43 PM
Noneck:

No worries. It's hard to tell what ANY player thinks today anyways.

Lip

SteveFakeBlood
10-07-2009, 07:58 PM
Thanks for posting all this info, Lip.

I'm going to say there are still some people in the "younger generation" who appreciate winning seasons. Yes, I understand that it's disappointing when a team underachieves- but no one is actually suggesting that having a winning season makes up for underachieving. It's just better to win more games- fairly simple logic. It's probably the most objective measure of this logic, having won more games than you've lost.

Hell, I even look at more subjective measures. 2006 was very disappointing, but I still took pride in winning 90 games- we just were unfortunate enough to be in the best division in baseball that year. 90 games would've won us the Central this year and put us in a tie-breaker with the Twins in 2003. Just as I would've been happier to not lose 90 games in 2007, but was happy NOT to finish last (something that's only happened once in my lifetime). There's really not much of a difference between 4th and 5th place, but there's a big psychological difference.

To your credit, it's better than saying "What's the point of making the playoffs if you're going to lose in the first round?" which could ultimately end in a few steps at "Why bother playing baseball if you don't win the World Series?"

But I don't know, I'd just rather win more games... it's not like there's a real benefit to losing more... I'm going to pretend that no one actually brought up the MLB Draft in regards to record- because I definitely have a response for that...

~Steve

Fenway
10-07-2009, 11:56 PM
Lip

Money talks to a point but you also have to spend wisely. See Mets and Cubs.

The Red Sox I believe had the 5th highest payroll this year and many of their players now are home grown.

Boston HAS to spend being in the same division as NYY. Red Sox do have a budget where payroll equals ticket revenue. New England fans are willing to pay the price for quality baseball.

The only way this will stop is if cable TV goes to al-a-carte pricing like Canada has
Then YES-NESN will no longer be worth more than the teams. Disney is doing everything they can to stop this from happening as they know 70 percent of cable viewers would drop the channels if given a choice.

Bill Veeck knew 60 years ago that local TV revenue would make it hard for the small market teams. In the NFL Rozelle demanded the money be shared equally and it saved the league.

On the flip side it is just wrong that the Pirates make a huge profit every year by stiiking the joint out. I suspect Kansas City is doing nicely as well.

Fenway
10-08-2009, 04:56 AM
If baseball was still two divisions we Red Sox fans would be pulling our hair out as the team would have qualified for the playoffs exactly once (2007) and played NYY in a one game playoff (2005)

Just look back

1995 win East but Cleveland won 100 games in a short season - nope

1999 wild card - nope

2003 wild card - nope

2004 wild card - nope

2005 tied with NYY - one game playoff

2007 YES

2008 wild card - nope

2009 wild card - nope

No team has taken advantage of the new system more than Boston.

Lip Man 1
10-18-2009, 07:00 PM
Fenway:

The Cubs had six winning seasons and three trips to the post season this decade, by far their best decade well, in decades....I don't think they are complaining as much as you may think.

Lip