Something I've noticed about MLB expansion teams winning World Series titles...
1961 - Los Angeles Angels and Washington Senators (now the Texas Rangers) enter MLB. Only one of them has ever won the World Series (the Angels in 2002).
1962 - New York Mets and Houston Colt'45s (now Astros) enter MLB. Only one of them has ever won the World Series (Mets in 1969 and 1986).
1969 - San Diego Padres, Montreal Expos (now Washington Nationals), Seattle Pilots (now Milwaukee Brewers), and Kansas City Royals all enter MLB. Only one of them has ever won the World Series (Royals in 1985).
1977 - Toronto Blue Jays and Seattle Mariners enter MLB. Only one of them has ever won the World Series (Blue Jays in 1992 and 1993).
1993 - Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins enter MLB. Only one of them has ever won the World Series (Marlins in 1997 and 2003).
1998 - Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays (now just Rays) enter MLB. Only one of them has ever won the World Series (D-Backs in 2001).
Of course, this pattern has only been in effect since 2002, when the Angels finally broke through and won (how about that first expansion class--96 combined seasons now and only one W.S. title).
History not on Rays' side
- danielh41
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:36 am
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Contact:
- littlebeast13
- Dumbass
- Posts: 31585
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
- Contact:
Re: History not on Rays' side
I used the 1 WS winner per expansion class factoid in one of my Take Me Out To The Ballgame quizzes, and was thinking it would be funny if the first expansion class to have all of its members win a WS was the most recent one.....
lb13
lb13
- etaoin22
- FNGD Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:09 pm
Re: History not on Rays' side
I remember when I was eight years old (1962) imagining that a talented athlete then my age might be the person to lead the Houston Colt .45's to their first World Series.
Then I thought .... "There will be so many summers until then, surely they will have won at least one.."
And then, I thought "twenty odd years, sixteen teams"; sure, the Houston team might well take until 1982 to win a World Series, or perhaps even longer.....
Then I thought .... "There will be so many summers until then, surely they will have won at least one.."
And then, I thought "twenty odd years, sixteen teams"; sure, the Houston team might well take until 1982 to win a World Series, or perhaps even longer.....
- Jeemie
- Posts: 7303
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
- Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!
Re: History not on Rays' side
It must be especially galling for Astros fans to see Brad Lidge on the verge of getting a ring with the Phillies after he helped wreck the Astros' chances of getting theirs in '05.etaoin22 wrote:I remember when I was eight years old (1962) imagining that a talented athlete then my age might be the person to lead the Houston Colt .45's to their first World Series.
Then I thought .... "There will be so many summers until then, surely they will have won at least one.."
And then, I thought "twenty odd years, sixteen teams"; sure, the Houston team might well take until 1982 to win a World Series, or perhaps even longer.....
PS I sure am hoping the Phils win tonight. Traffic getting to work this morning was awful, and I could use a break from morning gridlock!
Last edited by Jeemie on Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
1979 City of Champions 2009
- ne1410s
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
- Location: The Friendly Confines
Re: History not on Rays' side
dh41:
It would seem that the theory popularized by Mike Royko may not work this year: Whichever team has the most ex Cubbies always loses the series. Philly has three. TB has one.
Ha! The pikers!96 combined seasons now and only one W.S. title).
It would seem that the theory popularized by Mike Royko may not work this year: Whichever team has the most ex Cubbies always loses the series. Philly has three. TB has one.
"When you argue with a fool, there are two fools in the argument."