Yeah according to prod order, seems like most of the Jake episodes that aired at the end of the season were mostly taped at the beginning/middle. Old Time Movie was the 3rd for this season while Shake Rattle and Roll (last time we ever see him) was in the middle. And yes in most sitcoms, they sometimes tape even a week before it airs. the Gay wedding episode of Roseanne was taped 5 days before it aired. (Taped 12/7/95, aired 12/12/95). I saw a script online with the VTR date.
Josh Blake got a regular role on the CBS sitcom The Fabulous Teddy Z before the fourth season, and he was written out of ALF with nary a mention. Teddy Z aired for one season, and it was cancelled around the same time ALF was.
Although the Yankees have won more than one-quarter of all the World Series championships that have ever been played (27 of 107, or 25.2%), over the period from 1963 through 1995 the Yankees won only two World Series championships, which constituted a mere 6.25% of the World Series championships played over that 33-season period. Indeed, over that 33-season period, the Mets and Yankees won the same number of World Series championships.
Anyway you look at it, this year's Cardinals team is among the worst World Series champions ever, although not as awful as the '06 team. Of course, anything can happen in a short series and usually does, but why not shorten the regular season a bit if you're going to reduce the postseason to a crapshoot
I wouldn't call the '85 Royals \"awful\". The offensive other than George Brett was awful but the pitching staff was great. Basically it was George Brett having one of his greatest seasons with a great starting staff and Dan Quisenberry.
The '11 Cardinals were all about three great offensive players; Pujols, Berkman and Holiday. That starting pitching staff other than Carpenter was pretty terrible and Carpenter didn't even have great regular season.
One has to be careful of treating teams as if they were static entities over a season. Many of their top players missed time with injuries during the season, but with everybody in the lineup late in the season they seemed a much stonger club. They made some tweaks in the roster before the trade deadline and seemed to have emerged a stronger club form that, too. The August through October Cardinals may simply not have been the same level of team in terms of the talent being put on the field as the April thorugh July version. In short, be careful of using season-long stats to judge the true talent level of the team on the field in October.
And I agree that teams aren't static entities, but I also think the larger sample size of a full season is more meaningful than the last 30-40 games. David Freese isn't a great player anyway you slice it, but he had a disproportionate impact on the postseason this year, just as Fury Gene Tenace did in the '72 Series. When you get that much production from a guy of marginal quality like Freese, the short term record will greatly outweigh the reality. Unfortunately, Freese will spend the rest of his career, however long it lasts, trying to live up to what he accomplished this postseason, but always falling short, as he must.
1. bad bullpen (completely fixed at trade deadline)2. poor up-the-middle-defense (fixed at trade deadline with Furcal and Jay moving to CF)3. Tons of injuries with Craig, Freese, Holliday, Pujols,,, and Wainwright with 0 starts, etc. (Craig and Freese got healthy by the last month of the season)
Yeah I get what you mean by the word \"awful\" but I don't think it's really best describes a WS champion or that '85 Royals team in particular. I don't think the word \"mediocre\" describes them either. Other than Brett, they were an awful offensive team, so that's valid. But Brett was having a career year so that has to be factored in as well. Also, they had a great starting staff with Saberhagen, Leibrandt, Guibiza and D. Jackson. and they had an awesome season by Dan Quisenberry. I think Leibrandt gets kind of overlooked on that staff. For instance he was second in the A.L. in era in 1985 with a 2.69.
I think the other 13 teams on this list should probably be described as good teams that are usually not well rounded but feature one great dimension (pitching, offense or defense) or 2 or 3 great players having great seasons.
There's been 16 WS since the season with a wild card and a full season in 1996. Out of those 16 WS, nine of them have been won by teams with 93 wins or less. So more than half of the WS teams since 1996 have won 93 games or less. That's a pretty amazing trend that's not really discussed at all.
I don't think there's really that much incentive anymore to build a 100 win team, it's kind of pointless when you think about it. The extra rounds of playoffs just make the entire post-season far too unpredictable. You're probably better off to save your money and try building a 90-95 win team.
Through game 6 of the NLCS, the Cardinals had a better run differential than the Brewers, a slightly better strength of schedule, a drastically better road record, and vastly superior record vs. teams over .500. The Cards won the 24-game head-to-head series, and went to an extra round in the playoffs. The Cards feature more perennial past and most likely future All-Stars to boot. Other than having a few more regular season wins than a team that used the DL 18x (almost twice as many as Milwaukee), what criteria can we use to determine that the Brewers were really a better team
It is true that the playoffs do not determine the best team much of the time. That doesn't completely de-legitimatize the whole system either. The name of the game is for a GM to put out a top 9-10 team, as any top 9-10 team will have a chance of winning the whole thing any year. Of course the more times that a team is top 9-10, the better % chance they have of winning. A team like the Reds who were at that level once in the past 11 years, are not likely to win. That is just, IMO. A quality organization like the Cardinals, who are almost always in the category, have had many chances to win the \"crapshoot.\" And they have been rewarded justly for putting out that top 10 team year after year after year with multiple WS wins. So one season they lost to a team in the playoffs with 8 fewer wins. The next year they lost to a team in the NLCS with 11 fewer wins. Two other times, they beat teams with 10+ more wins. In 1985 and 1987, they lost to teams with 10 fewer wins. It has all balanced out, but more power to the organization for always putting out a team that has a chance.
This is absolutely my point - there is more to a WS winner than just a team's record that season, since many things can impact it: disproportionate amount of injuries, trade deadline trades, strength of schedule, etc, etc., etc.
So when the 200 Yankees wins the WS with 87 wins (or when the 2001 Yankees beat a team with 20+ more regular-season wins in the ALCS), everybody said \"we knew they were the best team all-along.\" Why Because of who was on the team and because what that core group of players had done in the recent past. Those things have to be considered alongside with W/L and run differential, etc.
Matlack gives up an unbelievable double to the pitcher Ken Holtzman in game 7 then he lost focus and gave up a HR to Bert Campaneris who hit all of 4 HR in the '73 season and then the wheels just fell off.
My point on post 39 wasn't about teams with 93 or less wins not deserving to win. My point was that the extra round of playoffs has made it so that it's not that important to build a team that wins 100 plus games in season anymore. There comes a point were winning all those regular season games becomes superfluous and kind of pointless if you don't win the WS. There was much more incentive to win 100+ games in the '69-93 LCS era because it was much more difficult to even make the playoffs than it is in today's wild card era.
In further defense of the Cardinals of 2011, if you look at combined regular season and post-season performance (that's 180 games worth of evidence for the Cardinals), the Cards had the second-best Pythagorean expectation in the 16-team NL, behind only the Phillies. The Cardinals and the Phils played head to head 14 different times combined over the regular and post season and the Cards won 9 and lost 5.
There seems to be a trend (with limited statistics) that the more rounds of playoffs you have, the more likely it is that the team with the worse regular season record (of the two in the World Series) will win.
What is disappointing in this tournament-style format is when a team that dominates the regular season doesn't finish at least second. The 1906 Cubs and 1954 Indians have World Series losses to help us remember them. On the other hand, the 2001 Mariners seem to be forgotten because they were eliminated too early. That's unfortunate in my opinion.
This post is tailor made for an inquiry I recently made on another site. I would lov eto know folks opinions on these matters. Speaking to how likely the WS is in selecting the best team. Sure, the whole season best indicates superiority-within a league. But differences in league quality & even scheduling within a league adds ambiguity about who is \"best\".
1) Given the whole season sample size & average differences in league quality, factoring in the random variations in play in short PS series, & also considering how team quality is distorted by being able to have your best pitchers go often & avoid your worse ones, that on average if we just took whichever team had the most wins in MLB, do THEY more often represent the true best team, instead of the actual World Series winner
2) That the best way to determine who is best would be to have one league over as many games as you can play in a season. Failing that, maximizes inter-league games if possible. For the PS, since we have a limited # of games possible, so minimize the # of rounds, & take the champion of each league, & given the breaks necessary between series, there should be time for at least a 21 game series. 59ce067264