What does it mean to you when a team wins the World Series?

[Omar 382]

Does that make them the best team in baseball for that season? Were the 2001 Diamondbacks better than the 2001 Mariners? What if the Indians win the World Series this year- does that make them better than the Cubs, or any other team in baseball this year? I'm looking forward to interesting opinions

 

[poprocksncoke]

Yes

 

[Omar 382]

Yes

Interesting. Why do you say that?

 

[navamind]

No, but it adds to their case. Most WS winners are among the best teams in the league (via record or run differential), of course you'll get the occasional '87 Twins/'06 Cards/etc.

 

[calsnowskier]

What is best? Who cares?

There is a defined process in place to establish a champion. The team that completes that process is the undisputed champion.

End of sentence.

Last year, the Royals were the champions. Were they the best? Who cares? If we just wanted to crown "the best", we should just allow fangraphs to appoint a champion each year and leave it at that. In fact, why even play out the season? Just sim it 500 times and end it there.

 

[redseat]

On Paper who can say they were the better team since they won the big show, regardless of their records. However, the Play-offs don't neccessarily mean the "best" team wins... it is all about who gets hot at the right time. Ala the Cleveland Indians. Don't get me wrong they are a very solid team but look at their roster compared to the Cubs and tell me who is supposed to be better or who is better?

Disclaimer: Totally NOT knocking the Indians they fully deserve to be where they are

 

[The Q]

Considering how different playoff baseball is from the regular season, and the fact that thre's way more information to work with, I'm gonna say the regular season tends to be a better indicator of who the best teams are.

 

[moxie]

It means everything clicked at the right time for a particular team. A perfect storm of skill & luck.

 

[poprocksncoke]

Interesting. Why do you say that?

They won the world series? May not have had the better record but did what it took to win.

 

[Omar 382]

They won the world series? May not have had the better record but did what it took to win.

"Did what it took to win." Could you clarify your statement, and not in a cliche this time?

 

[calsnowskier]

Omar, why dislike my comment? Because it didn't bend tour thinking?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

When a team wins a World Series, it means they're bad asses.

 

[Clayton]

Its weird that we question the sport without a time limit the most.

I'd venture to say that the deepest team wins the most games in a regular season and the best healthy team wins the World Series. There are a couple of exceptions but thats only because games are won and lost on the most minor of things usually.

The loaded term is healthy. Someone having too much tape on your weaknesses isn't healthy nor is someone arm dying. Almost everyone gets dinged up along the way, too.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

What is best? Who cares?

There is a defined process in place to establish a champion. The team that completes that process is the undisputed champion.

End of sentence.

Last year, the Royals were the champions. Were they the best? Who cares? If we just wanted to crown "the best", we should just allow fangraphs to appoint a champion each year and leave it at that. In fact, why even play out the season? Just sim it 500 times and end it there.

I think your answer is pretty good, and I agree, the World Series identifies the champion. "Champion" is not synonymous with "best," but there's really no criteria for or method to determine "best."

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Also, why's it smell like ball sweat and ranch dressing in here?

 

[Omar 382]

Omar, why dislike my comment? Because it didn't bend tour thinking?

Because you sounded like a dick.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

On Paper who can say they were the better team since they won the big show, regardless of their records. However, the Play-offs don't neccessarily mean the "best" team wins... it is all about who gets hot at the right time. Ala the Cleveland Indians. Don't get me wrong they are a very solid team but look at their roster compared to the Cubs and tell me who is supposed to be better or who is better?

Disclaimer: Totally NOT knocking the Indians they fully deserve to be where they are

WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF TRYING TO SAY THE INDIANS WERE LUCKY?!?! THEY ATE THE RED SOX LUNCH, ASSHOLE. FUCK YOU!

Just kidding. I totally agree. If the Indians had been healthy heading into the playoffs, I'd probably have said the Red Sox and Blue Jays were "better teams." With the injuries, there's no question the Indians weren't better. However, when the rubber met the road, the 2016 Indians proved that they were real bad asses while the Red Sox and Blue Jays just went into their locker rooms and jerked each other off with shampoo. I'm okay with that.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

"Did what it took to win." Could you clarify your statement, and not in a cliche this time?

Without exception, Omar, when a team does what it takes to win, it means they scored more runs than their opponent. Jesus. Do you even baseball?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Considering how different playoff baseball is from the regular season, and the fact that thre's way more information to work with, I'm gonna say the regular season tends to be a better indicator of who the best teams are.

162 games have a way of separating the wheat from the chaff, that's for sure.

 

[Clayton]

Question: were the Rangers "lucky" in the regular season?

If a team can be considered lucky over the course of 160+ games with a tough schedule then at that point determining 'best' at any juncture becomes pure opinion.

Thats why Championships work better than 'best team'