Originally Posted by doublem23
Who is making the argument the Giants weren't better than the Tigers? The argument is whether or not the Tigers were an appopriate representative of the American League in the World Series, which I would assume anyone who paid any attention to the AL all season long would know they were not. They were a ****ing miserable team for most of the year who were lucky enough to play in such a miserably bad division that they weren't essentially eliminated by August. They finished #7 in wins in the AL but spent the majority of the season around #8 or #9. They were essentially a second division AL team for almost the entire season who happened to get moderately hot at the end of the year and win their pathetically bad divison and displacing two far better entrants to the postseason (TBR and LAA) on the pure luck of geography. Bully for them.
And yes, they got lucky that baseball's new, even more watered down play-off system meant better teams in better divisions, like the Yankees and Rangers, had to exhaust themselves in wild divisional chases while a miserable underachieving **** team like the Tigers gets to sneak in to the playoffs and run those teams over because they spent essentially 5 1/2 months not having to try. The system itself is flawed in choosing a champion, the Tigers were better than the Yankees for 1 week in the middle of October, but for basically April-September, the Yankees were clearly the better team. Clearly. If you had actually paid attention to the season as it progressed, you'd have clearly seen this.
If the Rangers slapped around the Brewers in the World Series, nobody would be trying to paint broad outcomes of that, as everyone would be in agreement that the Rangers were a good AL team for most of the year while the Brewers were terrible to awful. It'd be expected.
If the Giants played a good AL team and beat them, that would be something to note. Beating a team that had no business in the postseason? Meh. Good for the Giants, they deserved to win, but hardly qualifies as anything extraordinary.
The Tigers were
lucky that the Yankees were a mediocre team, by Yankees standards and by division-winning standards. If the Tigers had no business being in the postseason, neither did the Yankees because the Tigers beat the crap out of them.
If the Yankees had made it tot he World Series, the Giants would have beaten them, just as they beat the Tigers. The top teams in the National League are better than the top teams in the American League. No matter how the league division series would have worked out, you would have had an elite NL team against an overmatched American League team.
Major league baseball isn't nearly as inclusive in its postseason as the NBA or NHL. With the exception of a play-in game for the wild card, it isn't single elimination as is the NFL. Baseball teams in different divisions play wildly different schedules. If you want to go by regular-season records, the White Sox had a very strong record against the AL West and played only .500 in interleague play. The White Sox had a clear winning record against the Rangers and a dismal record against the Tigers , so maybe they would have had a better record in the West if the travel hadn't taken its toll.
I paid attention to the season. I watched how it played out. I was not at all surprised that the Tigers beat the Yankees having watched the way the season played out. If the Rangers had made it to the World Series after their historic collapse, they would have been slapped around by the Giants -- again. Look at how much better the NL postseason teams were at all-around aspects of baseball than the AL teams. Maybe the Rangers would have slapped around the Brewers, but the Brewers didn't make it to the postseason.
But last year the NL wild card beat the Rangers, even if it wasn't what you expected. You obviously haven't been paying attention.