Originally Posted by doublem23
... So no, the idea that the World Series in which the AL was represented by a horrendously mediocre Detroit team that barely had any business being in the postseason at all paints a picture representative for the league as a whole is a completely asinine opinion. I'd be willing to give the Series more credibility if it truly was a champion vs. champion affair, but the watered down playoffs have made that all but impossible. I honestly can't think of the last time the World Series was really a matchup of the league's two best teams. 1998?
Really, it was a champion-vs.-champion affair. The Giants were clearly the best team in the West and emerged from two hard-fought postseason rounds. The Tigers won the Central and were were less mediocre than the Yankees, who had the best record in the AL despite being a horrendously mediocre team, which lost its season series to the White Sox. The Tigers were even less mediocre than the A's, who split their season series with the White Sox. The A's were less mediocre than the Orioles, which finished behind the Yankees. And all of those teams were less mediocre than Texas, Tampa Bay and the White Sox. That is why the Tigers got to the World Series. The mediocrity of the top teams in the AL was why the divisional races were so tight. It is why the White Sox contended. The top teams in the American League were mediocre compared to the top teams in the National League, where the divisional races were sett;ed much earlier. Whichever team was going to win the National League title was likely going to win the World Series.
Concluding that the top teams in the American League are better than the top teams in the National League because the American league held an interleague edge is flawed logic. Even if you believe that a seven-game series is ruled by luck that evens out over a 162-game schedule (although such statistical logic would have to naturally include a margin of error in the standings), interleague campetition was a succession of three (and home-and-home six) game series. Only half of the American League teams had a winning record against National League teams. The AL didn't dominate, and it wasn't a challenge with teams going up against teams positioned similarly in the standings.
Only the Rangers, Yankees and Angels won more than 11 games. The Rangers won five of six from the last-place Astros and swept the Padres in a three-game series. They beat the Giants two out of three in early June and also won two of three from the the Diamondbacks and last-place Rockies. The Yankees swept the Nationals in a three-game series in June, missing Strasburg (as every team did in the postseason, allowing the wild card to get past the first round), but they lost two of three to the Reds. Their 13 wins were aided by winning five of six from the Mets. The 12-interleague-win Angels were swept by the last-place Rockies. The Tigers were one of three AL teams with 11 interleague wins, splitting six with the Pirates and taking two of three from four other teams, including the Cubs. A three-game series in June is more vulnerable to luck because teams you can miss the other team's best pitchers or hit a Sunday where the other team is resting regulars because they are headed out on a roadtrip against league rivals.
Luck had nothing to do with the Tigers beating/sweeping the Yankees in the ALCS. You would have seen that when you watched the series. The Tigers certainly had more business representing the AL in the World Series than they Yankees. Luck had nothing to do with the Giants beating/sweeping the Tigers. If you want to argue that the Mariners and Twins were better than the Astros and Cubs, I won't argue. I think the AL is stronger overall, weaker at the top and stronger at the bottom. But that is different from labeling a team unworthy after it spent six months overcoming the challenges of a baseball season, emerging as the best team in the NL West, battling to win six elimination games to go to the World Series before sweeping it.
But when you watched the World Series, you saw the better team win and win easily, not because they were lucky, but because they played superior baseball. Arguing otherwise reeks of denial.