Quote:
Originally Posted by raulus
If they played 10 games and then went straight to the postseason, would that be enough to count as a season?
How about 25? 50?
Naturally, there's got to be a cutoff somewhere, where the season is so small as to not really be a season. You might think 60 is enough. I'm not convinced that 60 is really meaningful. Seems more like about 37% of a season to me.
Comparing to the 154 game season seems a little silly, particularly in the context that you're arguing that 37% is no different than 95%. Obviously 154 games is a real season. It doesn't seem absurd to suggest that we can debate whether 60 games is really a full season.
And in my case for this specific "season", my deep seated ill will, antipathy, and malice towards the Dodgers doesn't make me inclined to feel charitable towards 37% of a season being regarded as a full season.
|
What difference does it really make how many games they play then, as long as the powers that be declare that is the number to be played for that particular shortened season? So I suppose you would also then argue/believe that any awards or achievements from 2020 for players should also be disregarded or downplayed as well then? Then maybe we shouldn't even consider any of the stats accumulated during that season as counting at all, or that they somehow be discounted. For example, Shane Bieber should have his pitching Triple Crown title taken away because the 2020 season was shorter than expected, right?
To go ahead and discount/downplay some records, statistics, and achievements, but maybe not others, all because a season was shortened, is what I would find and declare as being truly silly. My example using a 154 versus a 162 game schedule is not being silly at all, because I specifically used that as a somewhat extreme example, expecting someone to come along and comment about it. Arguing that 154 games is close enough to count as a full, complete season, but 60 games is not, just allows me to emphasize the arbitrariness of what should, or shouldn't, count as a full season. You yourself can't come up with a specific number of games that would possibly satisfy you as to what would then allow you to consider a regular season complete, and therefore worthy of fully recognizing all the records and achievements during it. But whatever number you possibly did come up with is simply your opinion, nothing more. And any argument still fails to explain with any solid, factual evidence or reasoning why any one number of games is okay, but another is not.
I'm not particularly fond of nor rooting for the Dodgers either, but can fully understand you possibly having some additional bias on this issue because the Dodgers somehow seemed to benefit from the shortened 2020 season and came out on top of it with a WS title. But as long as they played the same number of games, under the same rules, constraints, and restrictions, as every other MLB team had to, then it really doesn't matter if the regular season consisted of 162 games, 154 games, 60 games, or even fewer games. The regular season is what they (MLB) designated it to be.
And let's face it, the only reason the MLB regular season is so long has absolutely nothing to do with needing that many games to truly determine the best teams. It has all to do about money and how many games they could play and get fans to buy tickets for, or radio/TV advertisers to pay airtime for. During the years of the 154 game schedules, each team played the other seven teams in their respective leagues 22 times each. Then with expansion in the AL and NL in 1961 and 1962, respectively, both leagues added two new teams and bumped the regular seasons up to 162 games, and now played every other team in their league 18 times each. But since then, and further expansion to 15 teams in each league, every team now plays 19 games a season against each of their division rivals, but only 6 games each against four other teams in their league, 7 games each against the remaining six teams in their league, with the final 20 games spread against teams in the opposing league. So at least in the old days they had teams playing everyone else in their league the exact same number of times so you could more fairly determine who was the best team to represent their league in the WS. So I would submit to you that worrying about the total number of games needing to be played during a regular season to properly validate it as a "real" season and also determine who the best teams are to then represent their respective leagues in the WS, has already been obfuscated by the extremely unbalanced schedules and differing number of games they now have teams playing against other teams outside their own division, and in the other league.
MLB has already wiped away the old traditions originally established by having teams playing everyone else equal numbers of games. So why is it so important to still maintain another tradition and have about the same total number of games used to determine what comprises a full regular season? As it is now, some teams can greatly benefit, or be hurt, by the luck of the draw in what division they end up in, and to a lesser degree, what opponents they get scheduled to play from the other league that particular year. Everyone in the world has already been penalized enough because of the pandemic, why further look to penalize some MLB teams and players for something totally beyond their control?