I was saddened when the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series last night. I was sadder when they knocked my beloved Milwaukee Brewers out of the playoffs.
As was proven in Moneyball, the playoffs are quite the crap shoot. Much different than a 162 game season.
And that brings me to the point of this post. Do championships really tell what team is the "best" for any particular year? And does it really matter?
I used to get a lot more broken up about my teams losses in the past, but now take them as they come. I look at things from a much more, how should I say - pragmatic - point of view now.
Even though Ohio State only (only!) won one National Championship under Jim Tressel, they were called chokers and all sorts of other crap by media and fans of other teams. The Buckeyes were a force almost every single year. BUT they lost a couple of title games and all of a sudden they are chumps? I think not. Of course that all unwound with the corruption and other scandals, but you get my drift.
It seems that all anyone cares about is the title, and putting together a string of victories in football, or a killer season in baseball (such as Texas did this year) is, to me, a much greater accomplishment than winning one series or game. The Patriots a couple of years ago ran the table until the Super Bowl, when they lost. I still say they were the best team that year - but they failed to win the big one so they are marked as losers? Huh.
The Packers to me were the best team at the time of last years playoffs. They were only 10-6 during the regular season, but won their last five games, and are now elevated into football valhalla. If they run the table this year, and then, say, Rogers gets hurt and they stumble during the playoffs, will they be labeled chumps? Yes! It ain't fair, I tells ya.
But like the song says, that's just the way it is.