Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

So, with one more Cubs loss, we will have our first World Series in which both participants are Expansion Teams.
Discuss. Compare and Contrast. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

It has been so long since the last expansion that I no longer think of them as being different/expansion.

Of the teams left Mets might have best shot of sustaining success over the next several seasons. I base that primarily on all the young controllable pitching.

KC has a lot of young pitching too but in the bullpen. Though the defense may be good enough to make any decent pitcher adequate. They seem to have the most depth in the lineup and possibly could adapt to someone having a down year or injury.

Toronto may be at a peak with core of team being a little older and closer to big contracts that may make team difficult to keep together. Definitely stopped thinking of them as expansion after winning a couple WS.

Valen wrote:It has been so long since the last expansion that I no longer think of them as being different/expansion.

I think that statement makes it even MORE remarkable. The first expansion happened before I was born, yet in those 54 seasons, there's always been at least one of the original 16 franchises in the World Series.
To contrast, Even if you don't count the AFL as an expansion league, Super Bowl V was the first Super Bowl which featured two expansion teams.

I'm not familiar at all with the expansion history of the NFL - when did Baltimore and Dallas come into the league?



And........."Back to the Future 2" notwithstanding, it's "Back to Reality - 108 years and counting" for the Cubbies! (Unless of course they pull another Redsox-like comeback as in '04)

Tom I actually meant Super Bowl VI with Miami and Dallas.

I think just going on memory that the Colts, 49ers, and Browns were part of another league in the mid50s and then joined the NFL, so I guess the Colts don't count as an expansion team per se.

But the fact remains that after no more than 12 seasons after expansion, the NFL had two true expansion teams in the title game, while it has taken 54 seasons for that to occur in MLB.

andycummings65 wrote:Tom I actually meant Super Bowl VI with Miami and Dallas.

I think just going on memory that the Colts, 49ers, and Browns were part of another league in the mid50s and then joined the NFL, so I guess the Colts don't count as an expansion team per se.

But the fact remains that after no more than 12 seasons after expansion, the NFL had two true expansion teams in the title game, while it has taken 54 seasons for that to occur in MLB.

Wow - after googling the NFL timeline history - it's been a jigsaw puzzle of additions, drops, mergers, re-alignments, etc.

Interesting to note that according to that reference - the Cardinals, and then the Bears are the two oldest and continuing franchises.

I wonder does the once an expansion team always an expansion team apply? Or do you stop being considered an expansion team after a while? Somewhat in my mind I quit thinking of the Mets as an expansion team following their 69 win and then the decade long fight they and the Cardinals had for supremacy in the NL East.

I stopped thinking of the Jays in terms of expansion after they won a pair of titles. I quit thinking of KC as anything other than the team that beat my Cardinals due to the failure of instant replay..... No G'Kar I am not still obsessed with .... Ok, maybe.

I stopped thinking of the Cubs as an expansion team when... Wait I still think of them as an expansion team. What's that you say Molari, they are not an expansion team? What will you try to tell me next?

Actually, to be honest those who know about my history will tell you I think every team except the Cardinals are an expansion team. Now there is a long story.

Musial6 - was gonna ask, did you mean Baltimore the Colts (of Johnny Unitis) who are now Indianapolis or Baltimore the Ravens who are really the Cleveland Browns (original Browns, anyway)