The all-never-made-the-playoffs team

On Sep 12, 4:11 pm, NFN Smith <worldoff9....TakeThisOut@sacbeemail.com> wrote:
> brink wrote:
> > I'm sure a lot of really, really good players -- and maybe even some great
> > ones -- had long careers in MLB that never included a single playoff game.
> > I just can't think of any, though I confess I don't know much about pre
> > divisional play MLB.
>
> > So who would make your all-time team for players who never made the
> > playoffs?
>
> I won't suggest names here, but I think it's necessary to at least
> divide the players whose careers were played mostly or entirely before
> divisional play in 1969, and it may also be worth dividing the players
> whose careers are predominantly in the wild-card era.
>
> Otherwise, the list is very heavy with pre-1969 players.
>
> This is why I get so annoyed with discussion of player "lifetime
> postseason records" -- because so many more players are now accumulating
> postseason records, there's really no comparison between the records of
> the current players and the pre-1969 players.
>
> Even if a current player has better lifetime postseason stats than, say,
> Berra, Mantle or Ford, the difference is that all of the stats
> accumulated by Berra, Mantle and Ford were done in the World Series.
>
> The postseason records accumulated by today's players are an
> accomplishment, but if you do apples-to-apples, and compare only the
> World Series accomplishments of today's players, they're pretty meager
> compared to the old guys, especially the guys who played with the
> Yankees between 1949 and 1964, when the Yankees were in the World Series
> nearly every year.

I agree that postseason records are slanted toward modern players, but
World Series records aren't really apples-to-apples either. It was
easier for a team to make repeated trips to the World Series in the
past, because they only had to beat out seven other teams to get
there, about half of what they have to deal with now. Plus, the team
that put up the best record over the course of the season went
straight to the Series. Now, no matter how good you are during the
season, you still have to clear two more hurdles before you can go to
the World Series.
 >> Stay informed about: The all-never-made-the-playoffs team 

NFN Smith <worldoff9908.TakeThisOut@sacbeemail.com> says:
>brink wrote:

>> So who would make your all-time team for players who never made
>> the playoffs?

>I won't suggest names here, but I think it's necessary to at least
>divide the players whose careers were played mostly or entirely
>before divisional play in 1969, and it may also be worth dividing
>the players whose careers are predominantly in the wild-card era.

Why? It's a simple question - all star team from players who never
made the playoffs. Very easy.

No need to get all anal on us and start imposing rules.

Run along now.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: The all-never-made-the-playoffs team 

Seapig <seapig.DeleteThis@altavista.com> says:

>Plus, the team that put up the best record over the course of the
>season went straight to the Series. Now, no matter how good you
>are during the season,

No team plays at a constant level of ability throughout the season.
The team that finishes with the most wins is not necessarily the
best team at the end of the year.

What happens in the playoffs is that enought teams are gathered such
that the team capable of playing the "best" baseball at the end of
the season is more likely included.

But it's not perfect. The team capable of playing the most
efficient baseball at the end of the season may very well be in last
place, and miss the playoffs altogether.

Recognizing the flaws in this reasoning, real sport fans have come
to redefine the "best" team in baseball as the team that wins the
WS. Using the word "best", as statfans do, however, to measure
efficiency, is neither practical nor productive, since, as we stated
above, the team capapble of playing the "best", or most efficient
baseball, may very well be in last place at the end of the season.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: The all-never-made-the-playoffs team 

Seapig wrote:

>
> I agree that postseason records are slanted toward modern players, but
> World Series records aren't really apples-to-apples either. It was
> easier for a team to make repeated trips to the World Series in the
> past, because they only had to beat out seven other teams to get
> there, about half of what they have to deal with now. Plus, the team
> that put up the best record over the course of the season went
> straight to the Series. Now, no matter how good you are during the
> season, you still have to clear two more hurdles before you can go to
> the World Series.
>

Agreed.

One wonders what kind of World Series records the Braves of the 90's
would have accumulated without playoffs.

As for the number of teams, that may be a push, because the talent is
more spread out. And arguably, although I won't say parity, there is
less of a spread between top and bottom.

I haven't checked the records, but I'm guessing that it's less frequent
now that you see teams winning or losing 100 games, than in the old era.

And despite the current ongoing badness of teams like the Pirates,
Royals and Devil Rays, I don't really see any modern equivalents of
teams that are truly wretched, year in and year out. Teams that come to
mind quickly would be the post-Ruth Red Sox, the St. Louis Browns, the
Pirates of the early 50's and the early New York Mets...

If the wild card had been in place, the 69 Cubs would have made the
playoffs, but I'll bet they still wouldn't have made the World Series.

Smith
 >> Stay informed about: The all-never-made-the-playoffs team 

grossman <SavoyBG DeleteThis @aol.com> writes:

>> Among HOFers with substantial post 1902 careers, you also have:

>Roy Thomas will do, and also be your leadoff hitter.

Except for the HOFer part.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
 >> Stay informed about: The all-never-made-the-playoffs team 

NFN Smith <worldoff9908.TakeThisOut@sacbeemail.com> writes:

>And despite the current ongoing badness of teams like the Pirates,
>Royals and Devil Rays, I don't really see any modern equivalents of
>teams that are truly wretched, year in and year out. Teams that come to
>mind quickly would be the post-Ruth Red Sox, the St. Louis Browns, the
>Pirates of the early 50's and the early New York Mets...

The worst offender of all would be the 1918-48 Phillies. They managed
to record 30 losing seasons and 30 second division finishes in 31
years, including 16 last place finishes and 12 100+ loss seasons,
which was more difficult in the days of 154 game seasons. Their best
season in that whole stretch was just 2 games above .500 (78-76) and
4th place, 1 game ahead of the 5th place team. Their average record
for that span was 56.5-94.9, or 0.373 WP. That's substantially worse
than the Devil Rays, and for more than three times as long as the Rays
have existed.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
 >> Stay informed about: The all-never-made-the-playoffs team