Why has the World Series become a Joke Competitive Wise?

[zahavasdad]

The Last 4 World Series have been a Joke. 3 out of 4 have been sweeps and the fourth , the Tigers only got 1 win.

Why has the World Series become such a competive Joke.

The losing teams arent even in the games (look at 2004 Cardinals, they werent even AHEAD in ANY inning)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That's nothing new. It happens from time to time.

The 1936-39 World Series were a joke. The Yankees went 16-3 over those four World Series. Also, the Yankees and A's went 16-3 in the 1927-30 World Series.

[philkid3]

Sometimes these things just happen.

And, really, 2005 was very competetive, the same team just managed to squeak by in those very competetive games. It was a handful of plays from being a sweep the other direction, let alone a longer series.

[runningshoes]

The Last 4 World Series have been a Joke. 3 out of 4 have been sweeps and the fourth , the Tigers only got 1 win.

Why has the World Series become such a competive Joke.

The losing teams arent even in the games (look at 2004 Cardinals, they werent even AHEAD in ANY inning)

Relax and take a deep breath, I have some good news for you:

It will spring back around. :cap:

You may not be alive to see it, but it will happen. They will become competative again.

200 years from now, there might be seven or eight 7 game series in a row.

[willshad]

probably has something to do with the wild card. The Rockies were just an average team, and were overmatched. id bet that the Mets and Sox would have gone 6 or 7 games. The mets were clearly the best NL team the last 2 years.

[Old Sweater]

probably has something to do with the wild card. The Rockies were just an average team, and were overmatched. id bet that the Mets and Sox would have gone 6 or 7 games. The mets were clearly the best NL team the last 2 years.

You may have a case for Mets in 2006 but the Rockies were clearly the best NL team at the end of the 2007 season when it mattered. Best teams don't blow a 7 game lead in Sept.

[willshad]

The Tortoise beat the hare in a race..that doesnt mean the tortoise was the faster runner.

[Old Sweater]

The Tortoise beat the hare in a race..that doesnt mean the tortoise was the faster runner.

Silly little quotes won't change the fact that the Mets chocked in 2007 and lost to the wildcard Cards in 2006.


Edit:oops, I should have said the NL Central Champ Cards. Be hard to be the wildcard with 83 wins for the season.

[parlo]

On the bright side,
this decade has seen the Angels, Rockies, Astros, White Sox, Tigers and Diamondbacks in the World Series.
An argument can be made that this is a good thing, despite the sweeps.

[philkid3]

You may have a case for Mets in 2006 but the Rockies were clearly the best NL team at the end of the 2007 season when it mattered. Best teams don't blow a 7 game lead in Sept.

Yeah, The Rockies tied for the most wins in the NL and then destroyed their opponents in the post season. They were more likely than not the best team.

[digglahhh]

I think the argument was predicated upon the assertion that the Mets playing at their best were better than any other NL team playing at their best.

That's a perfectly reasonable argument. No guarantee they would have played at that level in the playoffs, but there's no guarantee about anything like that.

As far as the last few WSes, somethings you get nailbiters, sometimes you get yawners. This is true all the time, sometimes you can see a great series between NYY and TB, sometimes you can see the Red Sox stomp the Mets. There's no way of ensuring any specific level of competition in a best of seven format.

[EdTarbusz]

It became very obvious this year that Fox thinks the whole baseball post-season (not just the World Series) is now a lemon. The games are too long, the post-season is too long, and there's only been a couple of good World Series's since the strike.

[PhilaPhanDave]

In 2007, at least, the Rockies were hot the last month of the season, swept their way through the first 2 rounds of the playoffs, and then had to sit for more than a week while the Indians & Red Sox battled it out in the AL. The Rox clinched on October 15, and the World Series didn't start until October 24. That's 9 days to cool off, playing no one, while the Red Sox only had to sit for 3 days after clinching on October 21.

The Red Sox became the hot team by winning the last 3 games of the ALCS, and it showed in Game 1 of the World Series.

So, in a nutshell, the Rockies were victims of their own success, I believe.

In 2006, the Tigers sat for 6 days before the WS while the Cardinals only had 1 day off. Similar issue.

[EdTarbusz]

In 2007, at least, the Rockies were hot the last month of the season, swept their way through the first 2 rounds of the playoffs, and then had to sit for more than a week while the Indians & Red Sox battled it out in the AL. The Rox clinched on October 15, and the World Series didn't start until October 24. That's 9 days to cool off, playing no one, while the Red Sox only had to sit for 3 days after clinching on October 21.

The Red Sox became the hot team by winning the last 3 games of the ALCS, and it showed in Game 1 of the World Series.

So, in a nutshell, the Rockies were victims of their own success, I believe.

In 2006, the Tigers sat for 6 days before the WS while the Cardinals only had 1 day off. Similar issue.

The Rockies also got to sit for an extra day because of the extra off-day during the ALCS, between games 4 and 5, that was mandated by Fox.

[Scoops]

While the overall Series haven't been close over the last few years, the games have been. Of the 17 WS games since 2004, 5 have been decided by more than 3 runs (one by 4, three by 5 and one by 12). Five have been 1 run games. Five have been two run games. Two have been three run games.

The six game 2003 series had two 1 run games, two 2 run games and two 5 run games. The losing Yankees won both of the "blowouts" while the victorious Marlins won the close games. In 2002, there were four 1 run games, one 3 run game, one 6 run game and one 12 run game. The victorious Angels won the 6 and 3 run games, while the losing Giants won the 12 run game. Each won two of the 2 run games.

Between 2004 and 2007 (17 games), about 30% (5 games) were decided by more than 3 runs. In 2002 and 2003 (13 games), about 30% (4 games) were decided by more than 3 runs.

To me, it seems like part of the reason we've seen the "uncompetitive" World Series' is just plain luck (or whatever statistical model you can ascribe to it )