Back in the 1950s or so, winning the baseball pennant was the goal; World Series championship was an

Estil

My grandpa said that back then, the main goal in baseball was to win the league championship (prior to 1969, only the teams with the best record in each league went to the World Series, no divisions or wild cards) and the World Series championship was just "icing on the cake". Nowadays of course, winning the league championship doesn't have nearly the presitge.

Anyway, is it true that in the past when there were no divisions/wild cards, winning the league championship was the main thing (since you had to play a whole 154/162 game season to decide it) and the World Series championship was just an afterthought?

stevek

<< <i>My grandpa said that back then, the main goal in baseball was to win the league championship (prior to 1969, only the teams with the best record in each league went to the World Series, no divisions or wild cards) and the World Series championship was just "icing on the cake". Nowadays of course, winning the league championship doesn't have nearly the presitge.

Anyway, is it true that in the past when there were no divisions/wild cards, winning the league championship was the main thing (since you had to play a whole 154/162 game season to decide it) and the World Series championship was just an afterthought? >>




Partially correct because getting in the World Series meant extra money, but winning it meant more extra money, so winning the World Series was still important and really was the main thing. This extra money was a good paycheck for the players back then before the salary escalations, when there was still the reserve clause. Professional athletes play for the money first, the love of the game second - always have, always will.




-

IrishMike

Went to my first Cubs game in 1955 so I guess I qualify a little bit to make a comment. I don't know where your grandfather is coming from with that analysis but the goal then was the same as today, to win the World Series. There was the American League and National League, period, no playoffs, no divisions. World series games were played during the day and you had to stay home sick to hear them on the radio or if you were lucky enough to own a TV, watch them.

Losing the World Series was intolerable and ruined the entire season for the loser's fans. Go try to convince an ol timer from NY that being a Dodger or Giant Fan it was ok to lose to the Yankees in the Series. Oh yeah get ready to duck.

perkdog

I bet the Dodgers prolly started every season thinking about beating the Yankees in the World Series.

markj111

Your grandpa is off his rocker. Every team wanted to win the World Series.

Estil

<< <i>Went to my first Cubs game in 1955 so I guess I qualify a little bit to make a comment. I don't know where your grandfather is coming from with that analysis but the goal then was the same as today, to win the World Series. There was the American League and National League, period, no playoffs, no divisions. >>



All the more reason winning the league (or even division in 1969-93 when there were no wild cards) championship then meant a great deal more than it does now, right?

Estil

Also, do teams still get bonus money for winning/getting into the World Series, or is getting that huge shiny ring and the memories what it's all about now?

Say, you know how at www.superbowl.com they have a picture of all the Super Bowl rings? Well, is there a site with all the World Series rings and logos?

jaxxr

Afterthought might be a bit too extreme, one always wants to be a world champion, however....

Back before big money, free agency, expansion, and inter-league play, winning the pennant was the PRIMARY goal of every team. The competetion in a particular league was much more intense than today. Each team played each other 22 times a year, rivalry was intense, the pride in winning the pennant was gigantic. Most players and managers focused mainly on that. Many great pennant races of the past, almost made the following WS seem somewhat anti-climatic.
IF a team did win their league, they then re-focused and the World series became the ULTIMATE goal.

Each league's first division teams, 2 thru 4 finishers, all got extra money, the higher the finish the more paid. The World Series did pay a much greater amount to the winner and loser, than to the non-participants.

Estil

<< <i>Afterthought might be a bit too extreme, one always wants to be a world champion, however....

Back before big money, free agency, expansion, and inter-league play, winning the pennant was the PRIMARY goal of every team. The competetion in a particular league was much more intense than today. Each team played each other 22 times a year, rivalry was intense, the pride in winning the pennant was gigantic. Most players and managers focused mainly on that. Many great pennant races of the past, almost made the following WS seem somewhat anti-climatic.
IF a team did win their league, they then re-focused and the World series became the ULTIMATE goal.

Each league's first division teams, 2 thru 4 finishers, all got extra money, the higher the finish the more paid. The World Series did pay a much greater amount to the winner and loser, than to the non-participants.

>>



I think that's more what I meant in my original question.

Estil

As Bob Costas says in one of his books in his anti-wild card stance, can you imagine how much different that famous call would be today?

THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!! THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!! The Dodgers get the wild card!! The Dodgers get the wild card!!

Doesn't quite have the same drama, does it? Frankly, I kinda miss those true pennant/division races; that's kinda what gave baseball its charm, you know?

BobaFett72

i like the wild card and apparently so does MLB. revenue is up, viewership is up and attendance is up.

Michigan

"Winning the pennant" does seem to be an old outdated expression. Now you hear "AL champion" or "NL champion" but I can't remember the last time I heard anyone on TV say that such and such a team has just "won the pennant".

Barndog

<< <i>"Winning the pennant" does seem to be an old outdated expression. Now you hear "AL champion" or "NL champion" but I can't remember the last time I heard anyone on TV say that such and such a team has just "won the pennant". >>



I remember it from 2004

Estil

Yes, they still refer to division races as "pennant races" yet they refer to the League Champion as the "pennant winner". Contradictory, no?

Michigan

<< <i>

<< <i>"Winning the pennant" does seem to be an old outdated expression. Now you hear "AL champion" or "NL champion" but I can't remember the last time I heard anyone on TV say that such and such a team has just "won the pennant". >>



I remember it from 2004 >>




2004 is ancient history for baseball.

Estil

BTW, did you know in a recent poll from about five years ago, players by a 2 to 1 margin would actually pass up a Hall of Fame career if it meant winning a championship instead. The question was whether they'd rather have a five year career with a World Series Championship or a HOF career and no championship (again they chose the championship by nearly 2 to 1). Call me crazy, but I'd be in the minority; I'd rather be one of the all time greats (HOF) than just be on one championship team. Then again, I suppose if I really was a major league ballplayer, perhaps I'd feel differently, you never know.