Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Not to add more doom and gloom

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,418 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 12 October 2020 - 06:37 PM

 

Whoever wins the 2020 WS will be justifiably proud of, and thrilled with, the victory. Just as previous teams were.

The victory will mean as much as previous and future WS wins in "the annals" of history.

Fans will justifiably feel pain at not being able to attend in person, but few if any will be less happy hoisting the flag next spring.

I disagree with your second paragraph. You present it as fact but it's not, and even as an opinion it's far from universally-held.

  • Craig Arko likes this

#22 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 27,051 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 13 October 2020 - 12:42 AM

I disagree with your second paragraph. You present it as fact but it's not, and even as an opinion it's far from universally-held.


Fair enough.

Check back in 10 years, I guess.
  • Nine of twelve likes this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#23 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 13 October 2020 - 08:54 AM

 

Excuse me for my opinion. Whoever wins the 2020 World Series will celebrate at the Rangers park, go to the clubhouse, take their masks off, have some champagne, and head for home asap to join those who already have. The victory will be quickly lost in the annals of MLB history and the only talk will be for the prospects of 2021.

The 2020 World Series champ will be "lost" in history? I'm guessing every reference source will list the 2020 champ between the 2019 and 2021 champs, with no asterisk.

 

The fact that the games were played on a neutral site, or that the winning players didn't soak the clubhouse in champagne, seems far more likely to be "lost" in history than the team that actually won the championship.

 

That's not to say we won't remember the odd circumstances of 2020. But the champion will likely be considered legitimate (especially if the sub-.500 Astros are hopefully eliminated in the ALCS :) ). Few notable players opted out. The regular season was shorter but the expanded playoffs gave every decent team a fair shot at the title, and only mild "upsets" have occurred so far.

 

Our best comp is probably the strike year of 1981. They played a few more games in the regular season (between 103-111) but their playoff format was considerably more unfair: the Reds and Cardinals actually had the best overall winning percentages in their respective divisions but weren't included in the expanded postseason! The Dodgers finished 4 games behind the Reds overall and wouldn't have qualified for a "normal" postseason at the time -- but in the "annals of history" that has become trivia and hasn't really lessened the significance of the Dodgers WS title at all.

  • Dodecahedron likes this

#24 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 15,892 posts

Posted 13 October 2020 - 09:05 AM

 

Whoever wins the 2020 WS will be justifiably proud of, and thrilled with, the victory. Just as previous teams were.

The victory will mean as much as previous and future WS wins in "the annals" of history.

Fans will justifiably feel pain at not being able to attend in person, but few if any will be less happy hoisting the flag next spring.

 

Plenty of people don't like the Dodgers, Atlanta and most definitely the Astros. I'm sure if any of them win plenty of people (maybe me included!) will discount their win merely out of spite. 

 

But if it had been my Twins, I'd be damned if I didn't fight back against anyone arguing that this year didn't count. It counted, and the playoff field was expanded, meaning the post season was even tougher than usual. I've never heard anyone discount the unusual seasons of 1981 or 1995. The NFL played with scabs for the first part of the 1987 season. If the Vikings hadn't lost in the NFC Championship game people around here certainly would be referring to that as a Super Bowl year.

  • SQUIRREL, USAFChief and spycake like this

#25 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Elizabethton Twins

  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 13 October 2020 - 11:41 AM

 

The fact that the games were played on a neutral site, or that the winning players didn't soak the clubhouse in champagne, seems far more likely to be "lost" in history than the team that actually won the championship.

 

Yep. Future generations will look at the championship lists and playoff results. 

 

Heck, even in 3-4 years most of us will have forgotten the specifics of the year, much less our children.....


#26 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,418 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 13 October 2020 - 08:41 PM

 

 

The fact that the games were played on a neutral site, or that the winning players didn't soak the clubhouse in champagne, seems far more likely to be "lost" in history than the team that actually won the championship.

 

 

Yep. Future generations will look at the championship lists and playoff results. 

 

Heck, even in 3-4 years most of us will have forgotten the specifics of the year, much less our children.....

I doubt it. For example, I know who lost the 1919 World Series and why, only because of the highly unusual circumstances surrounding it. I don't remember who won.


#27 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 14 October 2020 - 07:58 AM

 

I doubt it. For example, I know who lost the 1919 World Series and why, only because of the highly unusual circumstances surrounding it. I don't remember who won.

I'm not sure this is a meaningful example. Most people probably don't know off the top of their head who won the 1916 World Series either, or 1931, etc. Doesn't mean the 1916 or 1931 champs are any less legitimate than other years. It's just a generic memory effect which applies to everything (although probably less so to the modern game, as compared to 100 years ago, due to media, video, marketing, expansion and league/franchise stability, etc.).

 

1919 and now 2017 may be the only less-than-legitimate WS champs in the general public's eye for obvious reasons (and I suspect 2017's illegitimacy may still fade with time). Beyond that, I guess baseball historians might discount the WW2 years, when many players could not participate due to military service. But as of now, there are no cheating allegations about 2020, and very few notable players opted out of competition this year. The weird circumstances of 2020 everywhere will be remembered in the public consciousness, but it seems doubtful that the legitimacy of its baseball WS champ will be viewed the same as a cheating scandal or world war.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

#28 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 14 October 2020 - 08:08 AM

If the Astros win this year -- well, it would be complicated by the whole 2017 thing -- but I could see that club and its 29-31 regular season record lumped into discussions with the 1987 Twins and 2006 Cardinals as fluke / undeserving champs based on regular season record. But probably not forgotten (and certainly not as illegitimate as 1919).

 

 

But the other 3 clubs are all generally considered among the best in baseball, not only in 2020 but also 2019 and likely 2021 and beyond too. I think the lasting general public perception of one of those teams winning the title in 2020 will be pretty normal.


#29 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,418 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 17 October 2020 - 08:51 PM

 

I'm not sure this is a meaningful example. Most people probably don't know off the top of their head who won the 1916 World Series either, or 1931, etc. Doesn't mean the 1916 or 1931 champs are any less legitimate than other years. It's just a generic memory effect which applies to everything (although probably less so to the modern game, as compared to 100 years ago, due to media, video, marketing, expansion and league/franchise stability, etc.).

 

1919 and now 2017 may be the only less-than-legitimate WS champs in the general public's eye for obvious reasons (and I suspect 2017's illegitimacy may still fade with time). Beyond that, I guess baseball historians might discount the WW2 years, when many players could not participate due to military service. But as of now, there are no cheating allegations about 2020, and very few notable players opted out of competition this year. The weird circumstances of 2020 everywhere will be remembered in the public consciousness, but it seems doubtful that the legitimacy of its baseball WS champ will be viewed the same as a cheating scandal or world war.

I'm not saying that the 2020 World Champion is less legitimate than the World Champion of any other year. I'm simply saying that the circumstances surrounding the 2020 postseason are very unusual and therefore very memorable.


#30 Thegrin

Thegrin

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,130 posts
  • LocationRipon, CA

Posted 18 October 2020 - 10:21 AM

in 89 & 91 the Twins won the WS.All other years are ho-hum.:)


#31 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 27,051 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 18 October 2020 - 10:33 AM

I doubt it. For example, I know who lost the 1919 World Series and why, only because of the highly unusual circumstances surrounding it. I don't remember who won.

Well, to be fair, the TV coverage wasn't as good as it is today.
  • SQUIRREL, diehardtwinsfan, spycake and 1 other like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#32 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 27,051 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 18 October 2020 - 10:34 AM

in 89 & 91 the Twins won the WS. All other years are ho-hum. :)


89? Sweet!
  • SQUIRREL, ashbury, diehardtwinsfan and 2 others like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#33 ashbury

ashbury

    Twins fan for life!

  • Member
  • 25,978 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 18 October 2020 - 01:02 PM

89? Sweet!

This reminds me of how unlucky Allan Anderson was. He was on the Twins roster from 1986 through 1991, and yet had zero post-season appearances to show for it. In 1987 he was still just trying to get established, and by 1991 he was already on his way out. But 1989 was one of his two good seasons, so that was especially bad luck for him to miss the World Series. I forget now, was he injured late that season?
 

  • USAFChief and diehardtwinsfan like this

Wayne's World is the top show in Russia right now... NYET!


#34 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 27,051 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 18 October 2020 - 02:11 PM

This reminds me of how unlucky Allan Anderson was. He was on the Twins roster from 1986 through 1991, and yet had zero post-season appearances to show for it. In 1987 he was still just trying to get established, and by 1991 he was already on his way out. But 1989 was one of his two good seasons, so that was especially bad luck for him to miss the World Series. I forget now, was he injured late that season?


True, but he went on to be Governor of MN, so it worked out for him in the end.
  • ashbury, diehardtwinsfan and Nine of twelve like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#35 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,418 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 18 October 2020 - 05:03 PM

 

Well, to be fair, the TV coverage wasn't as good as it is today.

Nor radio coverage, which didn't start until 1921. I'm not going to opine on newspaper coverage.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

#36 Number3

Number3

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 548 posts

Posted 19 October 2020 - 09:23 AM

Don't know if you call this doom or gloom but anyone notice the pitching in the playoffs post Twins exit? Braves v Dodgers featured one after another throwing 95+ fastballs up in the strike zone. None of this nibbling with breaking balls and off speed stuff which Twins pitching seems to be. Possibly the whole idea of the big contract starting pitching will be replaced by simply having as many young arms as a team can lay its hands on. Money will be spent on home run power and speed along with defense. May be just a short season playoff aberration but was very noticeable.


#37 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,619 posts

Posted 20 October 2020 - 01:31 PM

 

Don't know if you call this doom or gloom but anyone notice the pitching in the playoffs post Twins exit? Braves v Dodgers featured one after another throwing 95+ fastballs up in the strike zone. None of this nibbling with breaking balls and off speed stuff which Twins pitching seems to be. Possibly the whole idea of the big contract starting pitching will be replaced by simply having as many young arms as a team can lay its hands on. Money will be spent on home run power and speed along with defense. May be just a short season playoff aberration but was very noticeable.

Good catch, I noticed it also, high 90's heat and a second pitch, curve, slider , or changeup.

Where is the Rat when you need him?