Why I am Content with Being Consistently Competitive (Revisited)
January 4th, 2009 | Published in Daniel Gettinger, baseball | 7 Comments
By Daniel Gettinger
Jeff Moorad, the former Diamondbacks C.E.O., is in the process of purchasing the Padres. Recently, Moorad “cited a World Series championship as a goal ‘the Padres organization and its fans so richly deserve.” Because so many fans think what they care about is winning a World Series championship, it is probably smart for teams to at least publicly state winning one is their goal. However, as I originally wrote back in July, I am content with being consistently competitive:
The Padres have never won a World Series. They have won two pennants, and five Western Division titles-all since 1984; but no championships. I often hear fans lament the fact that the Padres have never won a title. The most frequent complaint is not that the Padres have not won the Series, but rather that the team, and ownership in particular does not care about winning it all. John Moores, the Padres owner, has done little to extinguish the fan’s anger. In March, when asked whether his goal was to win a World Series this year, he responded that: “The goal is to play meaningful games in September” (San Diego Union Tribune).
Based on similar statements issued in years past by Moores and high ranking club officials such as Sandy Alderson, I believe it is safe to assume that the goal of the Padres is to be consistently competitive.
One mistake many fans make is that they assume there is a fundamental difference between striving to be competitive, and attempting to win a world series. Due to the random nature of the baseball playoffs, I am not so sure that this difference exists. Once a team qualifies for the playoffs, anything can happen (and as the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals can attest-it is often good things that do happen). Admittedly, although randomness is a huge factor due to the small sample of the post-season, the best teams in the playoffs still have a higher probability of winning the World Series, than the worst teams in the playoffs.
My biggest issue with striving to win the World Series in any given year is that sacrifices must be made in future years. To acquire that big-bat at the trading deadline, top prospects must be surrendered, or a terrible contract must be assumed. Basically, the team is forced to swap future success for an increased probability of winning a World Series in the current year. The marginal increase in the probability of winning the title is often not large enough to overcome the costs.
Unlike many fans, I do not think the mission of the Padres should be to maximize the number of World Series they can win. Instead, I actually agree with John Moores and would prefer that the team attempt to maximize the number of meaningful September games it plays for two reasons. First, for a smaller market team like the Padres, it does not make sense to trade top young talent to try and make a huge splash in a given year. The team’s best strategy is to remain consistently competitive and qualify for as many playoff births as possible. In doing so, the team will probably win more championships in the long-run, than if it went “all-in” one year, leaving itself with “no chips” to play for the next five years. Second, I personally do not care too much about winning the World Series. What I actually care about is that the possibility of winning the World Series exists throughout the season. As all Padres fans have been reminded of this year, it is much more fun to root for a team that is eliminated on game 163 rather than game 63. Would I rather see the Padres win a World Series than not? Of course. But in general, I am content with the team being “consistently competitive.”
January 4th, 2009 at 5:54 pm (#)
Nothing wrong with being consistently competitive or striving to win the World Series. The problem is that the message from the Padres is that we should be happy with the results of the 2004-2007 seasons, when realistically those teams could never be competitive with teams outside of our division because they were so inconsistent. The 2007 team had a shot before the injuries, but other than that they were teams that couldn’t win and because of that they weren’t exciting. It’s fun being the underdog chasing a better team but when you are the better team and you can’t clinch because you keep dropping games to really bad teams it’s a different story.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm (#)
Here here Daniel.
And it’s good to see “inconsistent” get a mention again now that Fire Joe Morgan has called it quits.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:09 am (#)
jbox-I guess I disagree with the premise that “they were teams that couldn’t win.” The 2005 and 2006 teams made it to the post season, while the 2007 team fell one (extra) game short of the playoffs. In 2006, the Cardinals won the World Series after winning only 83 regular season games. That season, the Padres won 88 regular season games. In 2007, the Rockies reached the World Series after winning 89 regular season games (not including the 1-game playoff), the same total as the Padres. In both seasons, the the team that eventually won the pennant in the National League was really no better than the Padres.
Now, if the playoffs were not such a crap-shoot, I might have a slightly different take on whether being “consistently competitive” is good enough. However, as it is, I really see nothing wrong with the results from 2004-2007, all of which were seasons in which the team either made the playoffs, or at the least fielded a strong, winning team.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:03 am (#)
Daniel,
Thank you for such a well thought out article. I could not agree more.
The simple fact that in the last 10 years 8 teams have won the World Series with the team with the best overall record in the regular season winning it only twice and in the past 30 years 20 different teams have won the World Series while the teams with the best overall record have only won it only 7 times should be enough to demonstrate that you don’t have to have the most expensive team or have the most wins in the regular season to win it all.
All you have to do is make the playoffs and then win 11 of a maximum of 19 games.
As a small market team like San Diego it matters more to BE IN THE PLAYOFFS CONSISTENTLY, than to give up your chance to win for years to come by sacrificing young players or signing large dollar, long term contracts with free agents that handcuff your payroll for years in an effort to be the best regular season team THIS YEAR.
Jbox,
You opinion that the Padres are not committed to winning despite of franchise record spending at all organizational levels and franchise record winning at the major league level over the past 5 years is well documented in your posts on Gaslamp Ball.
Instead of taking the view that only winning the World Series can be considered a commitment to winning, let’s instead take a lesson from the 2006 St Louis Cardinals and the 2008 San Diego Chargers and all the other teams that have won the Ring without being sacrificing the future to have the best regular season record.
Regardless of your record, if you win enough to make the playoffs, you at least have a chance of winning it all and consistently having teams in the position to do that is demonstrating a commitment to winning.
You also may want to take a look back at 2004-2007 and see just what the Padres record was outside of the NL West and post those stats to substantiate your assertions. Otherwise you just look like a whiner and I am sure that is not your intention.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am (#)
Being less candid about their actual goals might also help the Padres. They should have a stock answer of “our goal is to win the World Series” in response to that question, then go back to working toward the more realistic goal of remaining consistently competitive.
Some people may prefer brutal honesty, but most folks want to hear a more cheerful tune. Tell them what they want to hear. It’s not really lying, it’s acting.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm (#)
Geoff-I agree with your point. It seems the public reacts so negatively to statements such as “the goal is to play meaningful games in September,” that it is almost certainly better to just say “the world series is our goal.”
January 6th, 2009 at 1:08 am (#)
Good stuff, guys. I think it’s an interesting debate; one that I’ve found myself in a time or two … that is, what’s the difference between a playoff contender and a World Series contender? Or is there one? I really don’t know.
I think, in the end, you want to build the best team possible (within the given budget), without sacrificing too much in the future.
Or, in other words, I’m a cop-out : )