Albert Hofmann wrote:
enigma wrote:
I just think to determine a best team you need a larger sample size than one game or a series. The 80 US hockey team was not better than the Soviets but the US beat them when it counted the most.
Again they were the champions, but they probably weren't the best team.
That doesnt make sense. Of course the USA team was better. They beat them. How can you say they werent better? If the Cubs dont win the WS, hate to break it to you Cubs fans, but it will be because they werent the best team. The White Sox werent the best team in 2000. They were in 2005.
Because I don't look at one game. I look at the larger picture. That Soviet team was beating NHL teams before the Olympics. They destroyed the US team right before the Olympics.
Lets look at it this way, that Cardinal team in '06 won the WS so according to you they were the best team. The only way they got in the playoffs was because of the expanded format so a team with the 4th best record in the NL was able to win the whole thing.
Before 1969 there were no playoffs, so a second place team could not win the WS. If they had expanded playoffs pre-1969 then don't you think history might have changed? A second place team could have won the whole thing and been the "best" team. The Twins were a second place team in '67 in a 10 team league. But they were not considered the best team even though they had a better resume than the Cards of '06. They were not given the shot to compete.
You see what I am getting at? The Cards of '06 wouldn't be even in the discussion if the playoffs hadn't been expanded.
Villanova won the NCAA's in 85. They would not have been in the tournament 5 years earlier because the tournament had fewer teams.
Champions yes, best team no.