View Full Version : Why is the World Series so non-competitive?
SethInAz
10-27-2005, 08:01 PM
Does anyone have any thoughts? Is it because all the teams are just so burned out?
I really don't follow baseball a lot, but it seems like the division and league series are so much more entertaining. When was the last World Series that provided some drama?
Angel of Distraction
10-27-2005, 08:02 PM
Much like the superbowl, it is usually over quicker and easier than you'd like.
SethInAz
10-27-2005, 08:04 PM
Maybe it's the thrill of advancing to the next level that isn't there.
Shane W
10-27-2005, 08:06 PM
Even though this year was a sweep, that's not a clear indication on how good the games were. This was the most competitive sweep I've ever seen.
Angel of Distraction
10-27-2005, 08:17 PM
Maybe it's the thrill of advancing to the next level that isn't there.
I'm not sure I get you.
SethInAz
10-27-2005, 08:36 PM
I'm not sure I get you.
The thrill of surviving a series to play another. Maybe there's some complacency that sets in once you get to the World Series.
En Sabah Poo
10-27-2005, 08:54 PM
These last two have been pretty bad. But before that, there were several years where the series went a lot more games and was very exciting. One of the best world series ever was 1991, Twins and Braves. I think 4 games or so were decided by the last play of the game.
Taxman
10-27-2005, 09:02 PM
Well, this year the White Sox seemed to have taken most of August and September off. Everyone else except for the Cards had to fight down to the wire to get in. Boston didn't have decent pitching most of the year so they could only compete with the Sox by scoring a ton of runs. The Angels has that riduculous travel situation so they were worn down, plus they lost Colon. The Stros lost Clemens. The Sox caught a lot of breaks.
Taxman
10-27-2005, 09:04 PM
These last two have been pretty bad. But before that, there were several years where the series went a lot more games and was very exciting. One of the best world series ever was 1991, Twins and Braves. I think 4 games or so were decided by the last play of the game.Those three in a row that the Yankees won were horrible. They only lost one game. I think that the Yanks won 14 consecutive World Series games.
SethInAz
10-27-2005, 09:08 PM
I would hope so with their price tag.
Maybe I just hate the Yankees? ;-)
Kenneth I. Wolfe
10-27-2005, 09:11 PM
Because noone cares about baseball. Excitement piqued when Boston had a chance of winning, but that point on every world series will seem lame.
Hiya, loverboy.
sonnylarue
10-27-2005, 09:18 PM
Even though this year was a sweep, that's not a clear indication on how good the games were. This was the most competitive sweep I've ever seen.
Been saying the same thing all series long.
Brewtown Andy
10-27-2005, 09:20 PM
The '01 and '02 Series went 7 games. Marlins went 6 before dumping the Yankees, didn't they?
Taxman
10-27-2005, 09:20 PM
Been saying the same thing all series long.That year that the Florida Panthers went to the Stanley Cup final they were swept by Colorado. The fourth game went into double or triple overtime.
BWC Boston
10-27-2005, 09:20 PM
Maybe I just hate the Yankees? ;-)
Perfectly healthy, perfectly natural.
Taxman
10-27-2005, 09:21 PM
The '01 and '02 Series went 7 games. Marlins went 6 before dumping the Yankees, didn't they?I think that they were down 2 -1 and won the last three.
artimoff
10-27-2005, 10:26 PM
It's a fluke.
there usually seem s to be ore of a competion.
ERNIE_E
10-27-2005, 11:44 PM
The '01 and '02 Series went 7 games. Marlins went 6 before dumping the Yankees, didn't they?
That was in 97 when the Marlins beat the indians. I should Know because I am an indian fan.
World Series are pretty damn competitive. It looked lopsided this year because CWS caught nearly every break. The umps were under the highest scrutiny in years in my opinion, rightfully so, but Houston just ran into a buzzsaw but were in the position to win every game.
Humphrey_Lee
10-27-2005, 11:52 PM
Because most times one of the teams shouldn't be there because they're just a wild card on a hot streak?
Brewtown Andy
10-28-2005, 12:33 AM
That was in 97 when the Marlins beat the indians. I should Know because I am an indian fan.Nope, they did win in 6 in '03, too.
PeterSparker
10-28-2005, 06:44 AM
Those three in a row that the Yankees won were horrible. They only lost one game. I think that the Yanks won 14 consecutive World Series games.
Yeah but the '01 Yanks/D-Rays series was unbelievable. Even though the Yankees lost, it was still a very dramatic series. The Yankees had those two back to back comebacks with two out, down two runs in the ninth, and they hit two run homers each night to tie the game, then won them in extra innings. Game 7 was a tie game until the 8th inning, and the D-Rays were able to tie it, then win it in the ninth. That was a classic series.
Also the Angels/Giants series was a great 7 game series, with a great comeback in game 6 by the Angles to force a game 7.
But yes, the last two have been duds. I agree this year the games were close, but you needed the Astros to pull one of them out to give it some drama.
Taxman
10-28-2005, 06:47 AM
Yeah but the '01 Yanks/D-Rays series was unbelievable. Even though the Yankees lost, it was still a very dramatic series. The Yankees had those two back to back comebacks with two out, down two runs in the ninth, and they hit two run homers each night to tie the game, then won them in extra innings. Game 7 was a tie game until the 8th inning, and the D-Rays were able to tie it, then win it in the ninth. That was a classic series.And I never bought that the Yanks were that much better than the Braves to sweep them in 2000. Atlanta just rolled over as usual.
Jonny Z
10-28-2005, 06:49 AM
Yeah but the '01 Yanks/D-Rays series was unbelievable. Even though the Yankees lost, it was still a very dramatic series. The Yankees had those two back to back comebacks with two out, down two runs in the ninth, and they hit two run homers each night to tie the game, then won them in extra innings. Game 7 was a tie game until the 8th inning, and the D-Rays were able to tie it, then win it in the ninth. That was a classic series.
Also the Angels/Giants series was a great 7 game series, with a great comeback in game 6 by the Angles to force a game 7.
But yes, the last two have been duds. I agree this year the games were close, but you needed the Astros to pull one of them out to give it some drama.
*cough*d-backs*cough*
jason hissong
10-28-2005, 06:51 AM
The White Sox outscore the Astros by SIX runs in four games.
That's less than two per game.
Every one of the four games could have gone either way, if the Astros hadn't gone 0-for in their last 33 chances with RISP. Chalk it up to great ChiSox pitching as well.
It WAS a competitive series. The last two have been sweeps. Before that- '03 went six games, '02 went seven, '01 went seven.
-jason
Taxman
10-28-2005, 07:08 AM
The White Sox outscore the Astros by SIX runs in four games.
That's less than two per game.
Every one of the four games could have gone either way, if the Astros hadn't gone 0-for in their last 33 chances with RISP. Chalk it up to great ChiSox pitching as well.For something to be considered competitive, there has to be some intrigue, some doubt as to the outcome. No matter how close the games were, Houston never looked like they were in the thing. They held leads in only a handful of innings, and never led late in a game. Individual games were competitive, the series was not.
Balthazar
10-28-2005, 07:28 AM
Because the White Sox were the best team in baseball and kicked everybody's asses!
PeterSparker
10-28-2005, 07:33 AM
*cough*d-backs*cough*
d'oh! I guess my festering rage at them won't allow me to call them the right team (or even the right sport!) :)
ERNIE_E
10-28-2005, 07:46 AM
Nope, they did win in 6 in '03, too.
Damn, that's right. I forgot that second run. :surrend:
Sorry, that 97 series still stings I guess... :Oops:
Taxman
10-28-2005, 07:47 AM
d'oh! I guess my festering rage at them won't allow me to call them the right team (or even the right sport!) :)You have to admit that the Series the Yanks lost were more compelling than most of the ones they won.
Except for mayne '78 :x
Taxman
10-28-2005, 07:48 AM
Damn, that's right. I forgot that second run. :surrend: Who could you forget that series? It had Roger Clemens last game.
Oh, wait . . .
PeterSparker
10-28-2005, 08:15 AM
You have to admit that the Series the Yanks lost were more compelling than most of the ones they won.
Except for mayne '78 :x
Well I'm biased, but '96 was pretty exciting imo. Yeah it lacked any real back and forth, it was just one pendulum swing, the Braves embarrased the Yanks in the first two games then the Yankees took four in a row, but most were close games. Especially game 5 wich was a 1-0 nothing game. Polonia scorched a ball in the 9th with the tying run (and I believe the go-ahead run also) on base. O'neil had to run and get full extension against the wall to grab that ball, so there was some good baseball in that series at least.
And the Mets series was more competitive than the 5 game series indicated, but no question the most exciting series that they played in the Torre era was the one they lost to Arizona.....(bastards! :x )
jason hissong
10-28-2005, 08:20 AM
Especially when BK Kim made like Brad Lidge before Brad Lidge and gave up back to back round-trippers to lose two games in a row.
-jason
Generic Poster
10-28-2005, 08:20 AM
The White Sox outscore the Astros by SIX runs in four games.
That's less than two per game.
Every one of the four games could have gone either way, if the Astros hadn't gone 0-for in their last 33 chances with RISP. Chalk it up to great ChiSox pitching as well.
It WAS a competitive series. The last two have been sweeps. Before that- '03 went six games, '02 went seven, '01 went seven.
-jason
Not to mention that the 4 games totaled like, 48 innings or whatever.
Freeway
10-28-2005, 08:28 AM
I feel bad for the National League.
Since 1991, only 4 NL teams have won the series ('95 Braves, '97 & '03 Marlins & '01 D-Backs).
Shane W
10-28-2005, 09:31 AM
Because most times one of the teams shouldn't be there because they're just a wild card on a hot streak?
A fucking men.
Taxman
10-28-2005, 09:59 AM
Well I'm biased, but '96 was pretty exciting imo. Yeah it lacked any real back and forth, it was just one pendulum swing, the Braves embarrased the Yanks in the first two games then the Yankees took four in a row, but most were close games. Especially game 5 wich was a 1-0 nothing game. Polonia scorched a ball in the 9th with the tying run (and I believe the go-ahead run also) on base. O'neil had to run and get full extension against the wall to grab that ball, so there was some good baseball in that series at least.No, I thought that one was good. I was actually glad to see the Yankees win. :scared:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.