I'm with Kevin. The Red Sox and Yankees tied for the division. MLB can award anyone they like but I don't recognize their arbitrary decisions. Being awarded something is not the same as winning it. That year there was no division champion. It is pretty cut and dry for me. The rest of you sophists arguing that the Yankees "won" need to look in the mirror.

On the same note there are many years in which there is no national champion in college football.

My sarcasm detector is blaring so loud that my ears are bleeding.

You meant that to be sarcastic, right, Gaelan?

My sarcasm detector is blaring so loud that my ears are bleeding.

You meant that to be sarcastic, right, Gaelan?

Actually, I'm not. The funny thing is I knew that my real thought would be viewed as sarcasm so I almost said right out that I wasn't being sarcastic. But then I thought you'd think that was sarcasm so I left it out.

Anyway I stand behind those words.

Sophists. Huh.

I'm going to pretend for a moment that this isn't the most absurd argument I've been involved in regarding baseball and treat it like a real issue.

Nearly everything that exists in Major League Baseball does so because MLB says it exists. The World Series is not the result of evolution. It is the creation of Major League Baseball, and our notion of a World Champion comes about only because MLB holds this particular contest. The teams, the uniforms, the individual contracts, the standings -- none of these have any relevance without the organization of such by MLB. The home run records, the .400 seasons, the 300 wins -- none of these would mean anything if players broke away from MLB and achieved these feats playing pick-up ball in the backyards of homes across the country. If MLB says there are 30 teams instead of 28, then there are 30 teams. If MLB says that games played in Japan count toward the standings, then games in Japan count toward the standings. If MLB says that the winner of the All-Star Game gets home field advantage in the World Series, then that's what happens. And if MLB says that the Yankees are the division champs of 2005 despite having the same overall record as the Red Sox, then that is how it is. You can kick and scream about the rule being a bad one, but that in no way changes the facts. And in this case, nobody's idea of facts supercedes those of MLB, because they make the rules for their own operation.

This is the framework around which we discuss baseball. If people are going to pick and choose what rules they want to acknowledge, then it breaks down all conversation on the topic. You simply can't have civil discourse if we aren't going to treat rulings as constants -- if everything is left to the whims of individual observers then we aren't discussing baseball anymore, we're discussing your reality vs. my reality. And any reasonable debate disappears because when everything is opinion nothing can ever be wrong, and everything we know about the game -- its stats, its records, its championship seasons -- become meaningless, and despite the fact the Reds won the '90 World Series, nothing stops me from awarding the championship to the A's for being the better team.

Please, somebody smarter than me stand up for these basic principles before all is lost to chaos!

I can't believe Reading went down - they were so good the past few seasons.

If the Red Sox didn't stick with Millar for so long in 2005 - we wouldn't be having this debate

I can't quite believe they went down either. But the attacking impulse that served them so well for the last few years really fell apart. I can't tell if it's that Sidwell really was that important or if it's something else. Sure, if Doyle or Lita had been able to put away their chances anything like they did in past years, we would have been quite safe. But really the problem was in the midfield, where we just couldn't hold the ball.

I think I saw that Reading was ahead of only Derby in completing passes, which feels about right. For a team that made its mark by constantly moving and attacking, it was really unfortunate to see them play more and more long balls as the year went on.

Coppell decided to stick around and hopefully not too many of our players are going to get peeled off, so I think there's a very strong chance we can get back up next year.

MLB is an organization, not a single, unilateral actor. It's too simplistic to say that "MLB" did this or that; someone proposed it--the commissioner or an owner, generally--and then the owners voted on it. Everything about MLB would thus be valid and relevant without any other particular thing about MLB. Therefore, it's possible for there to be a political discourse within MLB, in which contradictory positions can be taken by different individuals.

To think that the Red Sox and Yankees should be considered co-champions for 2005, because they had identical regular season records, is a reasonable position within a full, living context. The fact that MLB's official position is otherwise doesn't invalidate an observer's ability to have a dissenting opinion on the matter.

Similarly, MLB's official position is that there should be a DH in the AL and not in the NL. That certainly doesn't prevent individuals both within and without the organization from thinking the situation ought to be different. In a case such as who won a division title when the teams had identical records and both made the playoffs, a different dimension is added, which is that an individual organization, fan, or whatever can essentially consider his team to be the co-champion. It doesn't deny anything that actually happened, and doesn't prescribe that anything counterfactual happen in the present or future, so why not?

And I don't even care about this!

Championships are won on the field. And only on the field.

Which is where the Yankees won it, by tying for overall record and having a better h2h record. This wasn't after the fact or subjective.

Anybody feel like talking about why winning the popular vote doesn't make you President?

Because that's the tiebreaker. Those are the rules.

You have said that it's only for playoff positioning. Can you indicate which sentence says that? What is it that has led you to believe that this rule references playoff seeding only?

Nearly everything that exists in Major League Baseball does so because MLB says it exists.

This has to be one of the batshit comments ever. Does Ken Griffey exist because MLB says he exists?

If MLB announced that the they changed their mind about the 1934 World Series champs. From now on, the Detroit Tigers, and not the St. Louis Cardinals, will be the official 1934 World Series Champion, would you just say "Well, if MLB says so, it must be true then. I'm sure they have their reasons for changing their minds about that."

Would you? Because that's what you're doing here.

Championships are won on the field. And only on the field. They can't be won after the fact in smoked-filled rooms by the addled decisions of half drunk middle aged men. If you haven't won by the only objective criteria there is, the final win tally, then you haven't won. If you win the same amount of games, then you tie. It's that simple.

Don't behave like a simpleton, kevin. He is clearly - CLEARLY - saying that the rules of baseball, from the way it's played to how standings and playoff berths are calculated, are those set by MLB. There is no other authority that should be respected or can carry force. So no, Ken Griffey doesn't cease to exist because MLB wills it be so; nobody is contending that. What he IS contending is that the rules, as set by MLB at the time, are the rules. They are the FINAL WORD. If the rules are subsequently changed, such that the h2h component doesn't break ties, then those are the new rules that will be applied to situations going forward. They won't be applied retroactively, however, unless MLB specifically wills that it be so (as they did in the redefinition of no-hitters/perfect games to exclude those broken up in extra innings). Now this situation isn't even relevant, since there's no reason to think that MLB will be changing these rules in the future, but even if they did and retroactively stripped the Yanks of their title, awarding it to the Sox, that would be okay too. They have that right. They make the rules, especially those governing who wins and loses. They can't rewrite history of course (and, say, declare the Orioles the World Series champions), but in situations like this they have a free hand. And this is their decision. Which you are bound to respect, regardless of your obdurate fanboy allegiances.

There are certain things that are immutable. And .586 = .586 is one of them.

Christ on a shoestring...okay, you know what? You're not an idiot, despite your clever attempts to impersonate one on BBTF for purposes of trollery. So I KNOW you must understand the point we're making - you're simply choosing not to acknowledge it for reasons I don't quite understand.

I shall repeat it once more, however: .586 may equal .586, but that is irrelevant. That's not the way MLB decides who the AL East champion is: winning percentage is not the sole criterion if there are ties, because MLB doesn't want ties. They have that right. They have the right to declare that there is no such thing in major league baseball as a "co-champion" because the concept of "champion" has absolutely no official meaning outside of MLB's definition of those rules. Folk definitions (aka "they were both tied at the end of the season, so I reject the MLB's tie-breaking rules and declare them co-champions!) are useless.

In fact, although it would be silly for obvious reasons, MLB could even theoretically declare that the team with the LOWER winning percentage is actually the division champion (provided they fulfilled some other set of criterion, like say having the best intra-division record). If they did that, it would be the new official definition of champion. They can do whatever they damn well please, and all the fan disagreement in the world wouldn't change the fact their word would be the law. Because, contrary to your childish analogy, there ARE no immutable "laws" in baseball. It might as well be Calvinball for all the power that its governing organization has to set and change the rules. And you are powerless to do anything except simper at home on your computer about how unfair it is.

You can personally choose to believe that the Red Sox were "co-champions" in 2005. But that does not make it so, and no matter how many times you feebly gesture towards the winning percentage, that won't change the fact that the criteria used to define the division champion in MLB is, just as in the NFL and the NBA, not strictly tied to winning percentage and thus subject to tiebreaking formulas.

Can you explain to me why it is necessary to appoint arbitrary championships for any other reason?

None of this is necessary. It's not necessary to have divisions, or champions or anything. Baseball could have had division co-champions, but didn't.

And it's not contradictory to be a champion but not have the best winning percentage. Not even if you jump up and down and repeatedly declare it to be.

And relax. Nobody is trying to discriminate (!) against the Red Sox.

to satisfy my own curiosity and other necessities, what was the actual bet? was it "who had the better record?" or "who would win the division?" because there's a vast difference in my mind based on the how things were framed.

I was always consider we came second ,because Joe Torre cried after they beat us on the Saturday to great effect.

to satisfy my own curiosity and other necessities, what was the actual bet? was it "who had the better record?" or "who would win the division?" because there's a vast difference in my mind based on the how things were framed.

Who would win the division.

If it were a legitimate criticism, the Yanks would have figured it out already.

This is the kind of comment that gives posters the rep of being fanboys...and deservedly so.

Crazy Yankee fans, agreeing with Major League Baseball's take on the situation.

The comment was because the Yankee fans are stating something MLB did not state, though. Perhaps you aren't familiar with MLB's position on the issue.

Thye need to do away with Penalty kicks

Can you explain to me why it is necessary to appoint arbitrary championships for any other reason?

Who said it was? I see a sentence that says that the "Division Champion shall be:" and then lists the tiebreaker. You say that's only for playoff positioning, but offer no evidence for that.

If Red Sox executive vice president Charles Steinberg and his marketing gurus wish to unveil a banner declaring the Red Sox 2005 cochampions of the American League East, it appears that will be the team's prerogative.

"If I were running the Red Sox," commissioner Bud Selig said last night, standing in the press box at US Cellular Field, "I would declare myself cochamps."

Said Steinberg: "It sounds like we agree with the commissioner."

The Red Sox and Yankees finished atop the AL East with 95-57 records but the Yankees were declared division champions, by way of head-to-head competition (10-9).

Selig's office, through a spokesperson, said the Yankees were declared champions of the East for postseason seeding purposes. Similarly, the Red Sox were declared wild-card winners for seeding purposes.

There is no established rule for whether a team is a cochampion.

"It's just a matter of common sense," Selig said.


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/10/06/costars_may_get_equal_billing/

Make fun of Kevin all you want, but he's the guy who actually bothered to read what MLB itself said (or he just got lucky, but either way he's right here)

Finally. Evidence other than "because kevin said so."

MLB clearly should add the "for playoff seeding" clause in their rules, because their rules as written don't support what Bud said. But the quote clearly indicates that that's Bud's intent.

"If I were running the Red Sox," commissioner Bud Selig said last night, standing in the press box at US Cellular Field, "I would declare myself cochamps."

Of course, Selig was in position to declare the Red Sox co-champs, and didn't. He was acknowledging that it's in Boston's interests to claim it. Which is common sense.

Oh, and a convenient place to clip the article, pkb33. Here's the next part:

So, are the Red Sox cochampions?

''That's an interesting question," Selig said. ''Certainly, one could make that case."

(You should have clipped after ''Certainly"!)

Let this thread be a reminder to you of the dangers of challenging me on something, mange.


That danger being that you will browbeat everyone with inconsequential evidence of your opinion for days waiting for somebody else to finally post relevant evidence in your favor.

If you had posted that article first thing, Kevin, this thread would be about 20 posts long.

Thanks for resolving that, pkb. MLB certainly has a way with miscommunication.

Let this thread be a reminder to you of the dangers of challenging me on something, mange.

And it also begs the question of why you didn't do your homework before making a fool out of yourself.

Oh, please. I asked for evidence, and you never provided it. Once someone did, I agreed with you. Your response is to be a dick about it? Why?

And as far as doing your homework, pkb did his. You never did. Thanks to pkb for, ya know, putting something relevant on the table.

Championships are won on the field. And only on the field.

No, they're not. See: 1910 AL batting title.

Oh, I get it. It's my fault you got your facts all wrong.

The side arguing against you didn't have the facts wrong. We had the facts incomplete. You managed to conduct a prolonged discussion without entering any evidence and without offering any other counterargument to evidence opposing your position. I guess you're not compelled to actually offer any concrete evidence, this being a message board, but it would have been the more civil thing to do to at least recall the comment by Selig (if not directly link to it) rather than petulantly hammer away at a point that had rendered immaterial by the evidence already at hand.

Hey, I was wrong. I took that hit already. The world I live in has disagreements; it doesn't hurt me in the least. Those disagreements are resolved with evidence. The evidence provided in all the text to that point said nothing about "seeding." (And again, I think MLB ought to clean that up, but that's their business.)

When additional evidence is provided, people can and do change their positions.

Was I ill-informed? Sure, by definition. But you didn't do any informing. If you could have informed and didn't, then you just like arguing.

Let this thread be a reminder to you of the dangers of challenging me on something

HAHAHA. Hilarious. Sorry, the Yankees are still division champs. And you are still, and shall ever be, a complete ####### idiot.

Nope. We agreed on the similarity in regular season record from the very first point.

Yep, looks like you just like arguing.

I was arguing, from a position of correctness.

You need to work on your debate style. Currently it is inconsiderate, lacking in generosity, uncivil and disrespectful. You don't have to come here to win friends, but it would be nice if you treated it like a community or a party to which you'd been invited, and not a urinal.

Selig could have declared Boston cochamps and didn't. This is not evidence in your favor.

I was arguing, from a position of correctness.

Again, if you have evidence of it, then you can convince people. I had no additional evidence, so had no place to continue to search.

You chose, for whatever reason, to not provide any additional evidence. Honest question - did you know of this evidence (even if just from memory)? If so, why didn't you provide it?

Why are you granting that he has evidence? The quote itself is contrary to Kevin's position.

This is madness.

Roy -

Selig's office, through a spokesperson, said the Yankees were declared champions of the East for postseason seeding purposes. Similarly, the Red Sox were declared wild-card winners for seeding purposes.

That's the quote that convinces me. YMMV.

kevin - are you willing to answer 163?

Kevin, all of the posts you pulled of mine were reacting to positions that were being taken by others, and I went to great lengths to explain why I saw particular positions as "delusional" or "absurd." You didn't show anybody this regard. You just kept shouting "I'm right" over and over. You didn't give much regard to any evidence to the contrary, and you evidently withheld information that would have made your position clear.

When you say ".586=.586" and somebody else presents evidence that those numbers are not the sole arbiter of division championships, and you continually retort with some variation on ".586-.586," that is disrespectful of the effort being put forth by others to advance the argument.

Not only did you go to virtually no lengths to support your position (presuming ".586=.586" was a discussion ender even though there was an MLB document that expressed otherwise), but when asked to provide supporting evidence, you responded that you weren't their errand boy. "Here's my position, if you don't agree go look it up yourself," is not a very generous or considerate way to engage in a discussion.

I think I went a great distance to not only state my opinion but explain why I felt why I did. Yes, I had a disdainful view of the opposing position, but I gave a pretty good background view to that disdain. You did not do us the same courtesy.

(Also, by the way, #114 was a joke pointed at myself, taking your response that I was using non-sequiturs in #105 out further to indicate that I was losing my mind. It was a throwaway gag. I'm sorry if you misunderstood its intent. #105, though, was a legitimate point about the importance of MLB's rules, writ large.)

mange:

It's the postseason purposes that makes the difference to you? What were divisions ever for but postseason seeding purposes?

You were expecting them to say that the Yankees were declared the winners of the east for bragging rights purposes? For bet-settling purposes?

The same article admits there is no process for having co-champions.

My mileage certainly does vary.

Ah. The classic "Black Knight Defense". I'm bleeding, broken and a quadruple amputee. But I still won.

I was wondering when someone would try that.

You can't tell when you've lost a division or an argument. The Selig argument supports you not at all.

Because they didn't have to add the phrase. They could have said the Yankees were champions of the East, and the Red Sox the wild card.

I agree it's circumstantial, but it does point to intent.

I wish someone had posted this earlier.

In some cases, teams have claimed to be co-champions and the major leagues have not definitively said whether a team can consider themselves division champions, but we will follow the press release quoting from the major league rule book found below.

mange:

This might be relevant if there was any mention of there being any other kind of final disposition of the teams for any other purpose. In fact, there is no other purpose.

You've lost sight of the target. Kevin is arguing that the Red Sox are co-champions. There is no evidence for this. Even the Red Sox themselves <url=http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/history/timeline5.jsp>don't claim this</url>.

What's more, the Selig article notes that there is no process for having co-champions, i.e., such a thing does not exist.

You've let Kevin bully you.

edit: what did I do wrong with the link?

edit: what did I do wrong with the link?

This site seems to like the [ over the <.

To avoid issues, I use the little < a > button over the comment box.

I looked at the timeline in the link yesterday, actually. The problem is that in 2004, for instance, they put clearly that they are the wild card. For 2005, they don't mention it one way or the other.

As for the bullying comment, um, no. I'm going off the evidence pbk33 provided. kevin hasn't even answered my 163, yet.

For 2005, they don't mention it one way or the other.

That is my point. The most that the Selig article stands for is that co-championship is "arguable," and Boston doesn't even do that.

I'm going off the evidence pbk33 provided.

That's the article where Selig declined to call the Sox co-champs, and the writer acknowledged that there was no process for having such a thing.

This is somehow enough for you to concede that they are co-champs?

I concede that MLB makes no distinction. For whatever their reasons, they don't appear to want there to be a distinction. So if it were my team, yeah, I'd probably argue they were co-champs.

I agree with #178.

However, if you admit there is ambiguity, then you can't at the same time buy into Kevin's proposition, which is that the Sox are (unambiguously) co-champs.

If Kevin wants to revise to "the Sox have an argument to being co-champs," then that's another story. But that's a considerably weaker argument.

So you won't address my question in 163?

Well, FWIW, the discussion would have gone a whole lot better if you'd offered it as evidence. It would have fit right in when someone (and I am not bothering to track back and find who) asked if would take Selig showing up at your house. But I appreciate your answering now.

It's an odd league that lets it be ambiguous.

Dear Baby Jesus in Heaven,

Please never let this discussion end.

Amen.

Kevin, there is no such thing as co-champs. Not even the Red Sox themselves are on your side on this.

Kevin, there is no such thing as co-champs. Not even the Red Sox themselves are on your side on this.

Maybe not the Red Sox, but the Cardinals surely agree with Kevin's take. And as Darren and I have pointed out, MLB's take on this has been muddled.

"It's basically the wild card, but it's also co- champions," said vice-president of scheduling and club relations Katy Feeney, who admitted being surprised by a flap that took six months to bubble over.

"Since the Astros had the better head-to-head record, they were determined to be the champions and the Cardinals the wild card for the postseason," said Feeney. "But since they both had the same regular season record, they were both co-champions. Technically, the Astros get the champion title."

Major League Baseball stipulates that a playoff can't be used to determine playoff seeding. Only in an instance where the losing team would be eliminated is a playoff game held.

Since the Cardinals and Astros led the National League in wins last season, there was no need for a final game under current bylaws.

Cardinals officials say they were informed during the division series that it was acceptable for them to refer to themselves as co-champions. They were surprised to learn of Hunsicker's comments suggesting the label was contrived.

"They prefer 'co-champions' so we don't use the wild card," Feeney said.

To corroborate the club's position, Jocketty cited the official certificate issued by the commissioner's office to the club in recognition of their postseason appearance. The certificate hangs in the lobby of the Cardinals front offices and reads: "By virtue of having the highest percentage of games won in the National League Central Division, the lesser record vs. co-champions Houston Astros and better record of all second-place teams, the St. Louis Cardinals are hereby declared the 2001 Wild Card Champions and Central Division Co-Champions of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs."

Feeney indicated there would be no official decree regarding the matter except to say, "If they keep going on like this we'll take it away from both of them."

The Red Sox do not claim co-champ status.
Selig does not acknowledge it.
The rules do not recognize it.

And as Darren and I have pointed out, MLB's take on this has been muddled.

I acknowledged this point, but it's a problem for Kevin's position, not mine. And Feeney's statement is no less muddled:

1. The Astros "were determined to be the champions"
2. Both are "co-champions"
3. The Astros are "technically" the champions

These statements are inconsistent.

Also, it curious that Selig would have issued a certificate to the Cards using the word "co-champions" and then be so coy in the boston.com article. Again, inconsistent.

Damn Roy, just because you're arguing with Kevin doesn't mean you have to resort to his tactics. As posted above, the commissioner's office informed the Cardinals after 2001:

"By virtue of having the highest percentage of games won in the National League Central Division, the lesser record vs. co-champions Houston Astros and better record of all second-place teams, the St. Louis Cardinals are hereby declared the 2001 Wild Card Champions and Central Division Co-Champions of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs."

That's from the commissioner's office. You can't wish it away, regardless how firm your contentions.

Also, it curious that Selig would have issued a certificate to the Cards using the word "co-champions" and then be so coy in the boston.com article. Again, inconsistent.

No argument about the inconsistency, but I'd have to say, overall, the certificate trumps the coy remarks. And it certainly rebuts your "there is no such thing as co-champions," statement.

191- Selig was non-committal on the Red Sox in the boston.com article linked earlier in the thread. The fact that this was AFTER the certificate to the Cardinals is interesting, isn't it? If the obvious solution was to declare the Sox Co-Champs, why didn't he do it?

192- Yes, I'll have to concede the no such thing point.

And actually, the fact that there demonstrably IS such a thing as a co-champ, combined with the fact that MLB has declined to extend that title to the Red Sox--even when questioned directly--is bad news for Kevin's position.

Let this thread be a reminder to you of the dangers of challenging me on something, mange.

Especially leg presses

OK, to sum:

Kevin says the Red Sox are co-champs despite:

1. The Yankees claim to be (sole) champions, and
2. The Red Sox do not claim to be (even co-)champions

The sum of evidence for Kevin's proposal is

A. The teams had the same w% (which is explicitly not the sole criteria)
B. Bud Selig said that the Red Sox have a common sense argument to be called co-champs (and yet he refuses to call them co-champs himself)
C. The Cardinals were awarded a certificate calling them the 2001 co-champions (BUT, I. at the same time, MLB insisted that nevertheless the Astros were "declared" champions and were the "technical" champions; ALSO, II. despite being only 4 years later, the Red Sox received no similar certificate, proving that these sorts of certificates obviously aren't a general MLB policy and may be nothing more than an attempt to mollify the Cardinals)

At best, Kevin, what you can get out of this is that the Yankees are the "declared and technical" champions, while the Red Sox have a common sense argument to be called co-champs.

I know Kevin will not concede, but I doubt that he's arguing in good faith. MLB could have made this clearer, and for some reason has deliberately remained silent. But that doesn't change the fact that, after weighing all the evidence, we cannot say that the Red Sox are 2005 co-champions (as distinct from having a "common sense argument" for that "title").

A fine ending. Like the 2005 Red Sox, Kevin won because he said he did.