Greg Hibbard Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 For most people, a "successful season" in major league baseball is solely defined by whether or not their team makes it the postseason. For some others whose teams have frequently been successful and/or set the bar higher, only advancement in the playoffs will constitute a relatively successful season. For the fans of a couple of teams such as the Yankees (and I would argue Red Sox and now possibly Phillies), only winning the World Series constitutes a successful season. To me, this is horribly depressing. Why is it depressing? Well for one thing, baseball is one of the longest, most grueling regular seasons of any of the major sports. I am struck by the disparity between a "successful season" in MLB and a "successful season" in any other sport, because in most other sports, about half the teams go to the playoffs. There are additional levels of playoffs to measure "success" by. In baseball, by most people's definition, 22 of the 30 teams have "unsuccessful seasons" even under the most forgiving terms of the common connotation. As it pertains to the White Sox specifically this season, several people have said this season that mere squeaking into the playoffs by winning the division was not enough for this team - that the expectations were that this team would advance deep in the playoffs because its payroll was relatively high. However, this season, 6 of the top 10 teams in payroll won't go to the playoffs. Is it right to have such an unforgiving standard for "success," where we don't necessarily apply it in other sports? Moreover, is this really the way this sport should really be set up in the postseason? If baseball had 6 teams advance in each league - about equivalent to what it would be in football or basketball, and the White Sox got in as the "6th seed" - would that be some measure of a successful season? More importantly, isn't it time baseball gets its ass into the 21st century and has a greater percentage of teams make the playoffs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjshoe04 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Of course the sox have the 9th best record in the A.L. and are 9 games back of sixth place so I don't see any way you could call this successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) Of course the sox have the 9th best record in the A.L. and are 9 games back of sixth place so I don't see any way you could call this successful. I don't call this successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) For most people, a "successful season" in major league baseball is solely defined by whether or not their team makes it the postseason. For some others whose teams have frequently been successful and/or set the bar higher, only advancement in the playoffs will constitute a relatively successful season. For the fans of a couple of teams such as the Yankees (and I would argue Red Sox and now possibly Phillies), only winning the World Series constitutes a successful season. To me, this is horribly depressing. Why is it depressing? Well for one thing, baseball is one of the longest, most grueling regular seasons of any of the major sports. I am struck by the disparity between a "successful season" in MLB and a "successful season" in any other sport, because in most other sports, about half the teams go to the playoffs. There are additional levels of playoffs to measure "success" by. In baseball, by most people's definition, 22 of the 30 teams have "unsuccessful seasons" even under the most forgiving terms of the common connotation. As it pertains to the White Sox specifically this season, several people have said this season that mere squeaking into the playoffs by winning the division was not enough for this team - that the expectations were that this team would advance deep in the playoffs because its payroll was relatively high. However, this season, 6 of the top 10 teams in payroll won't go to the playoffs. Is it right to have such an unforgiving standard for "success," where we don't necessarily apply it in other sports? Moreover, is this really the way this sport should really be set up in the postseason? If baseball had 6 teams advance in each league - about equivalent to what it would be in football or basketball, and the White Sox got in as the "6th seed" - would that be some measure of a successful season? More importantly, isn't it time baseball gets its ass into the 21st century and has a greater percentage of teams make the playoffs? No matter how you carve it up, this team performing so miserably while "all-in" is an unsuccessful campaign. They put together such an uninteresting, pathetic group that attendance dwindled and interest waned. The 2011 Chicago White Sox are Google+ level of fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Guys, let's clarify something. I don't think the 2011 White Sox are "successful", nor am I asking if you think they are "successful" I'm asking how you define success, and if they had gotten in as the 6th best record would that be successful, and if baseball's playoff format needs to be revisited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I think the playoff structure is perfect as it is. Adding more teams to the postseason would be pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) I think the playoff structure is perfect as it is. Adding more teams to the postseason would be pathetic. Agreed. And success is relative to the team. It's not a tough concept to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) Guys, let's clarify something. I don't think the 2011 White Sox are "successful", nor am I asking if you think they are "successful" I'm asking how you define success, and if they had gotten in as the 6th best record would that be successful, and if baseball's playoff format needs to be revisited. Success can only be attributed on a team-by-team basis. Baseball is crazy, once you are in anyone has a chance at a championship. Under Ozzie, the White Sox have only been "in" the playoffs 25% of the time, while playing in one of baseball's weakest divisions with some rather large payrolls. However, I'd say this year, without a doubt, they had to sneak in as one of those 6 to be defined as successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Success is relative to different teams. If the Pirates finished .500, they could call it a successful season. The Diamondacks are going from a 97-loss season to the playoffs the next year. No matter what they do in the playoffs, it's been a successful season. For teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and the Phillies this year, nothing but winning the World Series is a successful season. And for the White Sox, I call it a successful season if they make the playoffs. Just finishing over .500 means nothing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) Agreed. And success is relative to the team. It's not a tough concept to understand. This 100%. If you are expected to win 50 games and you win 75 you had a "successful" season. If you were expected to win 100, and you win 85, you were not "successful" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 I would be interested in people defining whether 2006 was a "successful" season, then. I'm not sure how many wins over 90 an organization can reasonably "expect" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) I would be interested in people defining whether 2006 was a "successful" season, then. I'm not sure how many wins over 90 an organization can reasonably "expect" Again, it depends on where you're coming from. When you've missed the playoffs 2 years in a row and 3 of the last 4, and you expand your salary significantly, missing the playoffs but winning 91 games would still, IMO, be a failure. IF you're coming off a 99 win season and a world series...90 wins is a failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) I would be interested in people defining whether 2006 was a "successful" season, then. I'm not sure how many wins over 90 an organization can reasonably "expect" You have to dig a little deeper on that season. They finished 34-43 the last 77. Ultimately it was an unsuccessful season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) Again, it depends on where you're coming from. When you've missed the playoffs 2 years in a row and 3 of the last 4, and you expand your salary significantly, missing the playoffs but winning 91 games would still, IMO, be a failure. IF you're coming off a 99 win season and a world series...90 wins is a failure. All of this, exactly. And it's still not hard to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) All of this, exactly. And it's still not hard to understand. Milkman, based on your easy to understand criteria, how many teams in the majors had successful seasons in 2011? here's my count: successful: philly and NYY only if they win the series. boston or tampa if either makes the playoffs, the other is unsuccessful. detroit, cleveland, texas, milwaukee, arizona, atlanta. unsuccessful: the other 20 some teams seems like 2/3rds of the time we should count on going six months to be disappointed, angry or both, huh Edited September 21, 2011 by Greg Hibbard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I'm pretty sure they just said its really subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSoxFan Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I define successful as making the playoffs unless it's some crazy year where some division rival is on fire and even though you won 95 games you still didn't get through. I mean, what can you do in that situation? That said: everything about this year reeks of FAIL, save for PK's stats. When your home record sucks, fail. When you get hammered by division rivals, fail. When you can't score with RISP, fail. When two of your most expensive players suck ass at the plate, fail. In fact, there's not much we did right at all this year, except demonstrate with screeching clarity that spending record amounts of money =/= winning baseball. In fact we're kind of the poster child for that this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) Milkman, based on your easy to understand criteria, how many teams in the majors had successful seasons in 2011? here's my count: successful: philly and NYY only if they win the series. boston or tampa if either makes the playoffs, the other is unsuccessful. detroit, cleveland, texas, milwaukee, arizona, atlanta. unsuccessful: the other 20 some teams Successful: Philly, NYY, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Arizona, Detroit, Texas, LAA, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Iffy: Boston, KC, Washington, Torotno (depends on if Boston can win the series or not and how the youth develops on the other franchises, which can only be judged a few years down the line). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 09:16 PM) Successful: Philly, NYY, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Arizona, Detroit, Texas, LAA, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Iffy: Boston, KC, Washington, Torotno (depends on if Boston can win the series or not and how the youth develops on the other franchises, which can only be judged a few years down the line). I'd say Cleveland had a successful year, as they far exceeded their projected attendance numbers and saw significant development from Masterson, Santana and Kipnis while bringing in a possible ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) I'd say Cleveland had a successful year, as they far exceeded their projected attendance numbers and saw significant development from Masterson, Santana and Kipnis while bringing in a possible ace. Good addition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) Milkman, based on your easy to understand criteria, how many teams in the majors had successful seasons in 2011? here's my count: successful: philly and NYY only if they win the series. boston or tampa if either makes the playoffs, the other is unsuccessful. detroit, cleveland, texas, milwaukee, arizona, atlanta. unsuccessful: the other 20 some teams seems like 2/3rds of the time we should count on going six months to be disappointed, angry or both, huh I'm not going to go through each team individually, because I simply don't care that much about them or their expectations. But around 10 in the entire league having a relatively "successful" season seems about right to me, yeah. Edited September 21, 2011 by Milkman delivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSoxFan Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Man do you remember the first week of games at Cleveland? Not Opening Day, but after? That place was so empty even I was sad for how far they had fallen, fan-wise. Hopefully that trend is reversed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 How about teams that had blatantly unsuccessful seasons? - White Sox - Cubs - Twins - Orioles - Rockies - Padres - A's - Mariners - Mets - Astros - Reds Of this list, I'd say the two Chicago teams, Reds and Twins had the worst seasons with regards to big picture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) How about teams that had blatantly unsuccessful seasons? - White Sox - Cubs - Twins - Orioles - Rockies - Padres - A's - Mariners - Mets - Astros - Reds Of this list, I'd say the two Chicago teams, Reds and Twins had the worst seasons with regards to big picture Eh, weren't people expecting a down year from Cincinnati? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 09:29 PM) Eh, weren't people expecting a down year from Cincinnati? No, they had huge expectations. Only reason for pessimism is if starting pitching was fatigued from previous season. Just a wasted year for them with Votto one year closer to being a FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.