Re: Oh well, I tried...

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:00:46 -0500, "gig" <osled@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:



>> 2007 - Boston
>> 2006 - St. Louis
>> 2005 - White Sox
>> 2004 - Boston
>> 2003 - Florida
>> 2002 - Anaheim
>> 2001 - Arizona
>> 2000 - Yankees
>> 1999 - Yankees
>> 1998 - Yankees
>> 1997 - Florida
>> 1996 - Yankees
>> 1995 - Atlanta
>> 1994 - No Postseason
>> 1993 - Toronto
>> 1992 - Toronto
>> 1991 - Minnesota
>> 1990 - Cincinnati
>> 1989 - Oakland
>> 1988 - Dodgers
>> 1987 - Minnesota

>10 out of the last 13 WS winners in that list are big market spenders
(top 7 
>of any given year, I'd say offhand), so I don't see how this proves 
>otherwise. Only Fla (2x) & Arz. snuck in there. 

St. Louis is not a big market team either. Neither are Cincinnati,
Oakland, and the Twins, which you arbitrarily cut off by choosing to
examine only 13 of the last 20 years that you originally said you had
to look at to get "an overall picture of things" (your words).

>So you'll see this happen 
>once in a while, but I would not expect the ratio of big market winners
to 
>small market winners to change over the next 100 years under the current 
>system. Figure a small to mid market payroll team to win the World Series

>maybe once every five years or so. 

But that hasn't been the case at all over the last 20 years. Even when
the Yankees won three world champion****ps in a row, they were both
preceded and followed by World Series winners from small markets
(Florida and Arizona), so that a small market team won twice in that
five-year span. Two years later, Florida won again. Three years after
that, St. Louis won. And two of the teams you cited in your original
post as having a distinct advantage over the other teams - namely the
Mets and Dodgers - have managed just one World Series win between them
over the last 19 years ago (that being by the Dodgers in 1988).

>And there are at least 12 to 15 of those 
>type teams every year. So that decease the odds even more. A system where
a 
>third to half of the league's teams has only a 1 in 15 chance of winning 
>every five years or more doesn't seem like a very competitive one to me.

Your math is faulty, as the list of World Series winners over the last
20 years proves. What you are claiming to be the case isn't the case
at all. But since your mind is already made up, there's little point
in my trying to confuse you with the facts.

JK