PDA

View Full Version : Pennant stats


Hitmen77
10-16-2007, 09:05 AM
The number of teams that have not won a pennant since the Pirates last did it in 1979 continues to dwindle. Here's the list (last pennant in parenthesis):

Cubs (1945)
Nationals/Expos (never, 69 expansion team) were Montreal Expos from 69 to 04
Rangers (never, 61 expansion team) were Washington Senators from 61-71
Mariners (never, 77 expansion team)
Devil Rays (never, 98 expansion team)In this decade, we've seen the White Sox, Angels, Diamondbacks, Astros, and Rockies drop from this list. In the last 28 years, 25 of 30 MLB teams have won at least one pennant.

Also, only 2 of the current 30 MLB teams have never appeared in a League Championship Series.

Texas Rangers
Tampa Bay Devil RaysAll other teams have made at least one LCS appearance since 1981. Of course, some of those teams haven't been back since the early 80s (Expos, Brewers, Royals).

nccwsfan
10-16-2007, 10:11 AM
Also, only 3 of the current 30 MLB teams have never appeared in a League Championship Series.

Texas Rangers
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Washington Nationals

Great list. It's splitting hairs, but you could technically add the Washington Nationals to this list (never having been to an LCS). The Expos played in the NLCS in 1981, but the city and fans of Washington have not yet experienced the LCS.

Fenway
10-16-2007, 11:12 AM
Great list. It's splitting hairs, but you could technically add the Washington Nationals to this list (never having been to an LCS). The Expos played in the NLCS in 1981, but the city and fans of Washington have not yet experienced the LCS.

25 years from now Tampa Bay will still be on that list.....they have no hope of even finishing second in the East to try for the wild card.

soxfanatlanta
10-16-2007, 11:45 AM
Could this be a trend towards competitive parity? I hope so.

Fenway: when MLB expand into Mexico/Cuba/Europe, the Rays will out from under that rock.

Rays in 2025 :smile:

itsnotrequired
10-16-2007, 12:08 PM
25 years from now Tampa Bay will still be on that list.....they have no hope of even finishing second in the East to try for the wild card.

With all the young talent they have, they could be a force in a few years.

Hitmen77
10-16-2007, 12:56 PM
Great list. It's splitting hairs, but you could technically add the Washington Nationals to this list (never having been to an LCS). The Expos played in the NLCS in 1981, but the city and fans of Washington have not yet experienced the LCS.

Good point. The league officially recognizes achievements by franchise even if they have relocated to another city. For example, the A's are recognized for winning 9 World Series titles even though 4 of those titles have been in Oakland and 5 were in Philadelphia.

Realistically, that doesn't matter much to fans in a certain city. The Giants last won the World Series in 1954, but that was in New York. The city of San Francisco has never experienced a World Series title.

So, officially the Nationals don't make this short list because that franchise made it to the NLCS in 1981 as the Montreal Expos. That doesn't mean anything to fans in DC, but then again they have only had the Nats for 3 seasons. During the playoff era, fans in DC also experience 3 unsuccessful years from the Washington Senators (1969-71), but that's counted as part of the futility streak of the Texas Rangers.

TDog
10-16-2007, 01:35 PM
And the Rockies are going to the World Series without having finished first in the history of their franchise. The Marlins have won the World Series twice and have never finished first.

You build a team to finish first in its division. You fight all summer to finish first, and the season ends in a best-of-five or best-of-seven series. (I'm thinking here more of the 1983 etc. White Sox, even this year's Arizona Diamondbacks. I don't lament the Yankees or the Cubs.) A wild card team usually makes it to the World Series anymore, but that wild card team usually has a better record than at least one of the league's postseason teams. Getting to the World Series isn't a fluke, but it isn't as easy to build a champion as some armchair general managers believe it is.

This isn't the golden age of Chicago baseball, but the Chicago baseball I grew up with, where in 1983 and 1984 the phrase "first championship of any kind since ..." came into being, is experiencing more success in the last decade. Postseason baseball comes to Chicago every couple of years these days.

With all the complaints about big money in baseball making it impossible for some teams to win, if the Indians beat the Red Sox in the ALCS, there would be guaranteed to be eight different teams winning the World Series in eight years. Such has not happened since collusion. Teams are finding young, hungry, relatively inexpensive (even grinding) talent can be better for one October than the high-priced superstars.

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 01:44 PM
The city of San Francisco has never experienced a World Series title.


Sure they did, when the American League team swept the inferior NL team in '89

Hitmen77
10-16-2007, 02:06 PM
Sure they did, when the American League team swept the inferior NL team in '89

That's why I phrased it as "city of San Francisco" - to highlight the fact that the Giants have never won a title out there even though the Giants franchise won it in '54 in NY.

As you have pointed out, the Bay Area has had 4 World Series titles thanks to the Oakland A's. I'm not sure if longtime Giants fans in SF are comforted by the A's success.

PKalltheway
10-16-2007, 05:06 PM
This sweep also marks the first time there has been a NLCS sweep since 1995.

I'm not sure if longtime Giants fans in SF are comforted by the A's success.
Exactly. I'm especially suprised at the fact that those star-studded Giants teams of the 1960's didn't win anything. My goodness, they had Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Juan Marichal, and Gaylord Perry all on the same team. 5 Hall of Famers on the same team, and they only made it to one World Series in the sixties (1962, and that was without Perry)! They did make the postseason in 1971, but that was with an aging Mays, and no Orlando Cepeda.

I'm sure Giants fans weren't comforted by the fact that their team won 103 games in 1993 and missed the playoffs, but the A's won the same amount of games in 1990 and were able to run away with the division.

chisoxfanatic
10-16-2007, 05:39 PM
Teams are finding young, hungry, relatively inexpensive (even grinding) talent can be better for one October than the high-priced superstars.
Absolutely. Didn't the Sox have a $65 million payroll in 2005?

TDog
10-16-2007, 06:53 PM
Absolutely. Didn't the Sox have a $65 million payroll in 2005?

I don't remember the 2005 payroll, but I know that the losses have increased with the increase in payroll in subsequent years, which is counterintuitive to what it takes to build a winner.

Winning with a low payroll seems to be a one-time deal. For one thing, a title means payraises. The market can be reactionary. Arbitration awards, new contracts to players in their free-agent years, contracts that lock them up beyond their free-agent years are major factors. Teams also know they have to improve if they want to stay on top. The White Sox obviously needed more hitting for 2006. They wouldn't have won if they had not made moves to upgrade, especially considering the pitching failed to perform by 2005 standards. The term "career year" is an overused simplification, mostly sprung by people who don't have respect for what it takes to play the game, which includes most of the media. But the reality is that after teams win, many of their players often come back less strong the next year.

The best way to develop a winner isn't through free agency, but through a combination of developed talent, picking up talented players who never reached their potential with their original organizations and filling holes with a trades and a few small free agent signings. That is what the White Sox did in 2005. The margin of error is great, however, and the window is brief.

In this millennium, no team has been able to repeat a World Series title. For that matter, the big-money leviathan, the Yankees, haven't won a World Series title.

The paradox is that if you want to win your division, you are under pressure every year to maintain and acquire talent.

It's like Tom Hanks said in "A League of Their Own": If baseball were easy everyone would do it. Hitting isn't easy. Preventing great hitters from hitting isn't easy. And building a winner isn't easy.

itsnotrequired
10-16-2007, 07:18 PM
Absolutely. Didn't the Sox have a $65 million payroll in 2005?

$75 million in 2005, 5th highest in the AL.

Hitmen77
10-16-2007, 09:13 PM
$75 million in 2005, 5th highest in the AL.

Are you sure they were 5th highest? I thought they were middle of the pack in payroll during '05 and then shot up to 5th highest during the offseason after they won the World Series.

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 10:33 PM
That's why I phrased it as "city of San Francisco" - to highlight the fact that the Giants have never won a title out there even though the Giants franchise won it in '54 in NY.

As you have pointed out, the Bay Area has had 4 World Series titles thanks to the Oakland A's. I'm not sure if longtime Giants fans in SF are comforted by the A's success.

I dunno about that, there's been plenty of long time Giants fans that hung out at playoff games in Oakland with me over the years. Sure they'd love to see the Giants win, but its not like most of them hate the A's

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 10:40 PM
This sweep also marks the first time there has been a NLCS sweep since 1995.


Exactly. I'm especially suprised at the fact that those star-studded Giants teams of the 1960's didn't win anything. My goodness, they had Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Juan Marichal, and Gaylord Perry all on the same team. 5 Hall of Famers on the same team, and they only made it to one World Series in the sixties (1962, and that was without Perry)! They did make the postseason in 1971, but that was with an aging Mays, and no Orlando Cepeda.

The star studded Giants teams of the 60s had three main problems, the Cardinals with Gibson and Brock and the Dodgers with Koufax and Drysdale, who were slightly better in all but 1962 and the Yankees, who cleaned them up in the '62 World Series with an even bigger star studded cast.

TDog
10-16-2007, 10:47 PM
The star studded Giants teams of the 60s had three main problems, the Cardinals with Gibson and Brock and the Dodgers with Koufax and Drysdale, who were slightly better in all but 1962 and the Yankees, who cleaned them up in the '62 World Series with an even bigger star studded cast.


And it's kind of sad, really. I've found since relocating to Northern California what a great city San Francisco is.

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 11:10 PM
And it's kind of sad, really. I've found since relocating to Northern California what a great city San Francisco is.

Giants fans been waiting a very long time for another win; they've never had one on the left coast and not too many sympathizers with what Barroids did to their rep and the yuppies crawling all over PacBell Park. Maybe now with Barry on the way out things will start to get a little better for Giants fans.

Hitmen77
10-16-2007, 11:35 PM
I dunno about that, there's been plenty of long time Giants fans that hung out at playoff games in Oakland with me over the years. Sure they'd love to see the Giants win, but its not like most of them hate the A's

Ok. Giants fans like the A's. You're absolutely right. I'm fine with that. I was just trying to make a simple example about fans in SF never seeing the Giants win it all since the franchise last won it in NY. Why the need to nitpick this statement and drag this thread off on a tangential debate about the Giants and A's fans interrelationship?

Speaking of the Giants, I guess with their recent success at the gate since moving to their new ballpark - it's easy for some of us to forget that they struggled to draw for many years at Candlestick. IIRC, they were seriously considering moving to Tampa in the early 90s.

GoSox2K3
10-17-2007, 11:33 AM
Here's an interesting and extensive list of who has been waiting the longest for a variety of post season accomplishments. It is also broken down by city and by metro area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_franchise_post-season_droughts

The worst off are the Nats/Expos, Brewers, and Royals who have all gone about a quarter century without any playoff appearance.

I think the most pathetic in the pennant and LCS droughts are the Cubs (pennant only) and the Rangers (pennant and LCS droughts). Both have been around for the entire "LCS" era, neither of these teams has the "small market" excuse and both have been known to spend outrageous $$$ on player contracts.

The Mariners IMO really didn't break out of the bottom-feeder shell until the mid-90s. Before then my view of them was like how I view the Devil Rays now. Since then, they have been fairly competitive.

The Expos had some great teams in the 80s and early 90s and then became nothing more than a glorified farm team for other MLB teams. Now that the Nats are moving to their new ballpark, I don't think they can cry "small market" anymore.

As far as the D-Rays go, I wouldn't be shocked if Fenway's prediction comes true. I know they have alot of young talent, but can they do anything before some of them start escaping via free agency? They're never going to draw in that awful dome and that will make it difficult for them to ever compete against Bos and NYY.

DoItForDanPasqua
10-17-2007, 09:35 PM
25 years from now Tampa Bay will still be on that list.....they have no hope of even finishing second in the East to try for the wild card.

Tampa has never won more than 70 games in a season, and have lost over 90 every year.

Hitmen77
10-18-2007, 03:46 PM
Tampa has never won more than 70 games in a season, and have lost over 90 every year.

Their franchise history winning % is .398.