Interesting Lab Study

[jim]

To be honest, it doesn't matter if either happen. I like watching baseball...even bad baseball. I've followed baseball my whole life, and it doesn't matter what team is playing or how good they are...I still get excited to go to the ballpark.

I'm a child of the 70's, I grew up on bad baseball. I definitely agree with this post.

This is a lot like how I feel too.

I grew up as a Cards fan living among all Yankees and Red Sox fans, knowing that this MIGHT be the year . . . but probably wouldn't. The pursuit was a lot more important than the finish line. I think that that comfort with baseball for its own sake is why as a kid I embraced the idea that the presence of a championship made things better, but lack of a championship did not make them worse.

When you were a kid how many playoff teams? These discussions wouldn't happen if you had 2 or 4. There would be no difference between rooting for a good team and rooting for the grand prize - same thing. The phrase "Just get in" would have made no sense.

I think that's the thing that has changed in the past that I think was better before - the emphasis on the regular season. There are benefits to the 8 team format - teams don't have to give in to the Yankee-type teams. You can still do it on a modest payroll. But the cost is this weird way that baseball teams are constructed.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I'm certain I'm close to the far end of the young spectrum on this board (2006 was the fist Cardinals WS win I ever saw and only the 4th Cards WS I was alive for), so seeing them win a championship for the first time in my life was very special to me.

Having said that, I still choose Option B.

If you could tell me that the Cardinals would be a mortal lock to win the World Series one year, but they would then be terrible for the next five, I could honestly live with that. But...you can't. No one can. There are no certainties. The playoffs are by nature a little bit of a crapshoot, and since the field expanded to eight, it's even harder to win the whole thing.

The same thought obviously has to apply to the other side. If you're perennially good (i.e., make the playoffs), then by that crapshoot theory, you're bound to win it all eventually.

[Jmodene]

I've been fairly consistent in my views on this:

I prefer a team that is competitive every year; the way the postseason is nowadays, any team that makes the postseason has a legitimate shot at winning the whole thing. FatStart makes a good point when he speaks of coming into every season knowing you've got a shot at a championship.

This is why even though the Cards went to the World Series 3 times in the 1980's, it was a frustrating decade for me, because you never really knew, going into the season, whether the Cards would be any good or not - each time we won a league championship that decade, we followed up with a sub-.500 season. That's why I get annoyed, too, when Herzog writes about his "ten great seasons in St. Louis" because they weren't all great - we really had only four great seasons (1981, 1982, 1985, 1987), one good season (1989), one decent season (1984) and four lousy seasons (1983, 1986, 1988, 1990).

The 2000's, by comparison, have all been good-to-great seasons except for 2003, which was only decent at best (we tend to regard 2003 as a lousy season, but the fact was that even with all our problems that year, we were in contention all season - and the only time we failed to make the postseason. I would suggest that many of the others could indeed be classified as "great" seasons, even though we had our hearts broken in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2005.

So, give me the annually-contending team, because at least we have a chance every year, even if the brass ring only comes every once-in-a-while.

[rnhturner]

I voted to contend year to year, but it was a really hard decision for me because it is all about winning.

Having said that:

I am very very very (very to infinity) glad we won the series last year, and at the same time I am very very glad Walt did not break the bank this year on marginal talent. I don't mind not contending if it came to that this year after winning it, if management still has long term contention in mind as I think they do. It is not that I don't want to win it again next year but I don't want to hand cuff our team like I think SF and other teams have by overpaying for above average not great talent. I am not saying we won't eventually have to pay, but money saved this year might actually allow us to get in on something when trade time rolls around or next off season. While SF and other teams are wondering where there money went, we might actually still have a little bit of spending money to bring in another big bat or stud pitcher, not just marginal talent. I am expecting some deal at the trade deadline for some player on some consistently losing team that won't pay free agent money to trade for what they can at the deadline and we trade and sign kind of like we did Scott Rolen. That seems to be Walts MO and I like it. If you give them just a little taste of STL and get them out of the place they are in, they are more likely (not always) going to sign just to get the whole thing done. Who knows, maybe Walt has his eye on a 3B/OF big bat on a not so good team that would fit the bill. Anyone know of one in the NL EAST south of Atlanta? Naaahhh, just dreaming.....or am i?

[greenback44]

Not so sure about the Bill James causing this - I can see the point but to me if anything has caused it it's the playoff format. 30 years ago you had a to have a dream season to get to October, 15 years ago you almost always (one or two exceptions) had to have a good season to get to October. Now, every year there seems to be a team just a tick above average getting to October, creating the whole question in my opinion.

I did say "also" for Bill James. I mean, there's no doubt that the playoff format causes problems, something I which Keith Law had done a better job articulating last October. What I'm trying to say is that there's a much greater focus on the process than on the end results, to borrow from Paul DePodesta, and from a popular standpoint that started with James. Even with the new playoff format, I'm not sure a question like this would be asked without Bill James and his ilk.

[Jmodene]

Well, when you have a system that has given us second-place teams in the World Series every year since 2001 (and two second-place teams in the Series in 2002) then you know there's a problem.

Being the best is no longer good enough. Now you have to be lucky as well.

[Asmodai]

As a Cub fan, both of them seem like a utopian dream.

LOL

You're a good sport, Mephisto.

I crap on the Cubs more than most. The day the Cubs signed Soriano I was moaning and [expletive] for about 100 pages on NSBB, no joke. I'm still mad. Lugo would have been the right move.

[longhornbaseball]

The problem with this question is that its not very realistic. If you're always in contention you always have a shot at a championship and if you've won a Championship its a very good bet that you have been or will be in contention for at least a few years. Its not an either/or situation. You CAN have your cake (contention) and eat it (championship) too.

[Asmodai]

the first two search returns on google images for "florida marlins" were pictures of the mermaids.

[cabby7588]

Living my whole life as a Cards, Colts, Blues, and Pacers fan...I've learned that as enjoyable as it is day-in and day-out, you play these games for one reason...To win a championship. I'll trade in 162 days of missery for one day of hoisting a trophy. I can see why some people would think differently, but this is the only way I see it.