The Tigers have more postseason wins since 1992 than the Twins

by ahtrap on Oct 11, 2010 2:18 PM EDT

Provocative fanpost title aside, I promise, I come in peace. I'm a Tigers fan, a regular over at Bless You Boys, and an occasional visitor to these parts. And after seeing those (darn) Yankees do what's become a depressingly familiar number to your Twins last week, I've been wondering about something. As a fan, is it better to be a frequent visitor to the postseason, or to have that one big run at glory to hang you hat on? Because, for all of the Twins' Central Division titles in this past decade, if you count up the number of games the Twins and the Tigers have won in the postseason, Detroit comes ahead 8-6.

A few thoughts on this after the jump.

A) My timing is deliberate here. It's not meant to rub it in while the Twins loss is still fresh, but I am looking for a still raw reaction to this question. I might ask it again later down the road, and see if opinions change.

B) The Tigers haven't won a division crown since 1984. The 1992-2001 portion of the "Since 1992" time frame is a wash, since neither team made it to the playoffs then. You remember those days, right? You know, when the Indians were good? After that, however, Minnesota has won the AL Central on 6 occasions, 2002-2004, 2006, and now 2009-2010. These 6 trips to the postseason have produced a grand total of 6 wins, one series victory, that coming in 2002 in the ALDS, 3 series where the Twins won one game, and in the past three playoff appearances, sweeps.

By contrast, the Tigers have only made it to the postseason in 2006, but they beat the Yankees, rode Magglio Ordonez's majestic walk off bomb into the world series, and then the pitchers pretty much threw away the World Series, in a fashion that still makes this Tiger fan cringe when he thinks about the phrase "E1". Still, they won 8 postseason games en route to that crushing World Series defeat at the hands of the Cardinals.

C) Honestly, I'm not sure what my own answer is to my question. If I put more conditions on it, along the lines of, "If your team could win the division often, and then get blown out in the playoffs every time," I think it'd be an easier call, on the side of, "I'll take a shot at only occasional regular season success if it offers a chance for postseason glory."

But since you're not forearmed with the knowledge of what might happen in the playoffs, because once you're in, anything could happen...I don't know if I'd trade that 2006 run to the World Series for your 6 division crowns, but if you asked me about the future, I'd probably opt for the consistent success the Twins have enjoyed these past ten years over the out of nowhere burst of glory that was the 2006 Detroit Tigers.

Curious as to your thoughts.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Minnesota Twins, Detroit Tigers

Comments

Would I trade Game 163 for losing the World Series?

Probably not. I like this Twins consistent success. Bodes well for the future.

Also kind of a selective period of years there, no? Intentionally skipping ’84 to ’91?

"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez

by myjah on Oct 11, 2010 3:48 PM EDT reply actions

I think his point was well intentioned and well presented.

Let’s be nice.

I always loved that one.

by FoulJack on Oct 12, 2010 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions

I've got no problem with that

Like I say somewhere below, we are rivals after all, so that dig’s fine in my book.

I did spare a moment to considering whether to grant the Twins a 7th post season win based on Game 163. In the end, I figured you wouldn’t want to remember a different game 163, just as I’d rather not recall the one between our teams.

And yeah, myjah, the time frame is absolutely intentional. 1984-1991 is a past generation now, we’ve got younger folks on our board who weren’t alive when the Tigers won, and I’m sure you have college kids on here for whom 1991 was just colored blips on a TV screen. Yeah, sure my time frame supports the point I wanted to make, but it’s also apt as far as comparing seasons that all the readers can remember.

I'm expecting 100% improvement from the Lions this season.

by ahtrap on Oct 12, 2010 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions

Man I'm getting old

But I suppose I sort of missed the “in your experience, which experience would be better” bit.

I have perhaps very faint memories of 1987. Not really of the games, but I remember a giant Homer Hanky draped across the school by my house. I have more memory of 1991—mainly of Kirby Puckett, Tomahawk Chops, my dad telling me about what happened in Game 6 after I fell asleep and promising he would buy me a hat if the Twins won. And I remember that hat. 1991 and Kirby Pcukett are really probably the reasons I am a Twins fan today, so it’s really impossible for me to look at the perspective of being a Twins fan without 1991.

"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez

by myjah on Oct 12, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

IMO, the greatest thing is that it's not one or the other.

It’s really basic for me – In order to win the World Series, you must first make the playoffs. The fun in baseball, for me anyway, is following the current team.

A great history of championships is nice, but what you do you think Yankee stadium will look like in the September of the next year they lose 100 games? Likely not too smug, probably not sold-out – not too much to be proud of. It doesn’t really matter if you’ve won 27 in prior years if “this year’s” team blows.

Chasing the current season’s championship is where the real excitement lies, so having a team that at least gives us a chance at getting there is what it’s all about. As you elude to above, once you get there, it sometimes takes a little luck to make it through – we obviously haven’t had any of that this decade.

"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series

by WindyCityTwinsFan on Oct 11, 2010 4:09 PM EDT reply actions

+100

You could go on all day with stuff like this. Since 2005, the Brewers have more postseason wins than the Twins also. Which team would you rather be?

IF there is some magical answer to make the Twins better prepared to win once they make the playoffs, I’m all for figuring that out. I’m sure there are a variety of theories, and perhaps the team can try to improve on those areas. But I’m not going to apologize for being excited about following pennant race baseball every year.

by matswilander on Oct 11, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't know, good question...

I like to think we’ve had a shot at the WS each time we’ve gotten to the ALDS. You can’t win if you don’t play. I’ll take our 6 AL Central titles and knowing we will be back for another try in 2011.

And yeah, your title really pissed me off. :)

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"When he dove I slapped Nick Punto." Gardenhire on Mauer's head first dive into 1B.

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Oct 11, 2010 6:18 PM EDT reply actions

Well, I had to get in a little dig

We are Tigers and Twins fans after all, it wouldn’t be right otherwise.

Here’s the thing, though, when you think about it, it’s a post that could possibly be written by a frustrated Twins fan. And the same goes for that title.

As for your conclusion, that’s pretty much where I’m leaning myself, the whole lottery theory. You can’t win if you don’t play. Playing alone doesn’t guarantee much of anything, not when the odds (Yankees and Red Sox payrolls) are stacked against you. But every once in a while, you can scratch off something good.

I'm expecting 100% improvement from the Lions this season.

by ahtrap on Oct 12, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions