That's a wrap

What if I told you that the Detroit Tigers should have been declared the winners of the 2006 World Series? You’d probably lock me away, but hear me out.

In the 2006 regular season, the St. Louis Cardinals won the NL-Central with 83 wins--just two games over .500. But that was enough wins to get them into the first round of playoffs. The Tigers had 95 wins during the regular season--or, a whooping 14 games over .500--and yet only came in second place in the American League Central. However, it was enough wins to get them into playoffs as the Wild Card.

In the first round of playoffs, both teams had three wins to advance. In the second round, both teams had four wins to advance. And in the final round? The Cardinals had four wins, while the Tigers only won once.

A little math will tell you that in 2006, the Tigers had a total of 103 wins. The Cardinals only had 94. Therefore, by rights, the Tigers should have won the World Series, and the Cardinals stole it from them, right? Sure, the Cardinals won four in a best-of-seven series, but they had less wins total. Yes, they had three more wins in the final round, but they had nine runs less in total. Something is clearly flawed here. The team with the most over-all wins should win, right?

Prior to 1969, there were no playoffs other than the World Series. Before that, the champions of both leagues would play each other in a best-of-seven series (or best-of-nine, for a few years). Under those rules, the World Series would’ve pitted Mets versus the Yankees, both of whom led their leagues with 97 wins--and neither of whom made it to the World Series in 2006. If you go before the Leagues were divided into three divisions, the Tigers were in the AL-East, and wouldn’t have been in the playoffs (the Yankees had 97 wins in ’06). Without the multiple playoff rules, the Tigers and the Cardinals wouldn’t have had a chance of the World Series title.

It sounds like I’m controlled substances and have a misguided view of how sports should work, right? It’s like saying the Patriots deserved to win the Super Bowl in February 2008, because they were undefeated before then. Of course not! The reason for the playoffs are for great stories, surprising upsets, etc.

And yet, that’s been the view of this year’s Home Run Derby. Josh Hamilton hit 28 home runs in the first round (to Justin Morneau's eight), and didn't even need to hit in the second round (but hit four anyway) while Morneau got nine to move on. After two rounds, it was Hamilton clearly--clearly!--edging out Morneau, 32-17. That's a 15 home run difference.

Granted, the home run derby is no where near as big of a deal as the World Series or the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup*, it’s still a case of "who gets hot when." No one should take away from Hamilton’s awesome performance in the first round. That was amazing to watch. The kid has great talent, and a great story. The thing is, Morneau got the hits in the playoffs. As great as Hamilton is and as impressive as he was during the whole contest, when it all came down to the final round, he didn’t have enough get the win. Just like the 2008 Patriots.



*NBA will be included when they get a cool name, rather than “NBA Championship”.