View Full Version : NL East vs NL West

09-02-2005, 05:23 PM
With the playoffs looming, I'd just like to extend my sympathies to any fans of the Marlins, Mets or Nationals (or whoever finishes bottom three in the NL East) who may lurk here.

It must really suck to look at their teams' records and compare them with those of the NL West, which can now once again boast of having a massive one team over .500 (the Padres, by one whole game).

To me, it seems eminently bet-worthy that the teams which finish in the last three places in the NL East will have end-of-season records that are at least as good as, if not better than the eventual winners of the NL West, who will represent their Division in the playoffs - and that just has to hurt...

As I've only being watching this great game for a couple of years, I'd like to ask how common this phenomenon is, and whether anyone ever kicks up a stink about it.


09-02-2005, 05:31 PM
I don't think it'd be as bad as seeing your team having a better record than the other division winner and not make the playoffs during the 2 division format.

I was too young to remember the 1990 season well enough, but getting 94 wins and finishing better than the Red Sox had to sting.

Johnny Mostil
09-02-2005, 06:18 PM
In 1994, as others (Lip?) have pointed out, the Texas Rangers were in first place in the AL West but ten games under .500 at the time of the strike, and probably would have become the first division champ to have finished below .500. Prior to that, the NY Mets in 1973 "won" the NL East with an 82-79 record, the worst record to date of any postseason contender. That didn't stop them from defeating the Reds 3-2 in the NLCS and taking the defending champs to a seventh game of the World Series.

I'm sure others have other opinions, but the Sox not making the 1990 playoffs didn't really bother me. The rules were a team had to win the division to qualify. The Sox didn't, and the A's were clearly the better team that year.

Edited: just to clarify, it didn't bother me that the Bosox made it and the Chisox didn't. The Bosox won their division. The Chisox didn't. I also didn't shed tears for, say, fans of the Blue Jays, Yankees, and Brewers in 1987, all of whom had better records than the West division (and eventual World Series champion) Twins, nor was I upset that in 1984 the Blue Jays, Yankees, Red Sox, and Orioles finished better than the West division champion Royals but didn't make the playoffs. Them's the breaks . . .

09-02-2005, 06:29 PM
With the advent of (heavily) unbalanced schedules in the late-90s, it has become virtually impossible to qualify for the postseason with a really bad record. It's not that the teams don't suck as much as they ever did. It's just that the unbalanced schedule hides the truth because SOMEBODY has to win all those intra-division tilts between San Diego and LA.

The '73 Mets won the NL pennant after posting a record just 3 games over .500. The '87 Twins won a world championship after posting a record just 8 games over .500.

I'm not saying the San Diego Padres aren't as bad as these teams, but given how MLB is set up these days, how can you really tell? And furthermore, with the advent of the wild card, what difference does it make?

Stupid baseball...


09-02-2005, 06:54 PM
Stupid baseball...

To quote Milt Pappas " The game sucks nowadays."

09-02-2005, 08:14 PM
To quote Milt Pappas " The game sucks nowadays."

Far too true,Daver.Far too true.:(: :(:

Teams with sub .500 records making the playoffs??
When did Paul Tagliabue become the commish of MLB??
I hope "Pud" Selig is happy.He's finally achieved his wish.;

09-06-2005, 10:29 AM
For baseball's sake, the Padres better finish over .500.