Rays > Cardinals

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 20, 2009 6:34 PM EST

There was a lot of talk over the weekend about what the bigger surprise is, the Rays reaching the World Series or the Cardinals reaching the Super Bowl. ESPN.com had a poll on the issue and the Cardinals won in a landslide, 62% to 38%. The state of Florida was the only one to vote for the Rays, and even that was pretty close(54% to 46%).

Frankly I think that's ridiculous.

-The Cardinals are a good story, but it's not like they were the Detroit Lions. The Rays were a laughing stock every year of their existence prior to 2008.

-The Cardinals played in the worst division in football last season, with no other team finishing with a winning record. The Rays won the toughest division in baseball last season.

-It's much tougher to win a five, and then a seven game series, then it is to win three straight playoff games.

-The Cardinals finished 8-8 last season and returned this season with stars like Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Kurt Warner and Adrian Wilson. The Rays had to rely on young and/or unproven talent.

I'm betting that if the seasons were flipped and the Cardinals made the Super Bowl in October and the Rays made the World Series right now the poll results would also be flipped around. Bottom line is the Cardinals had a surprising season, but the 2008 Rays had one of the most remarkable seasons of all time.

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I disagree

The Rays were an expansion franchise for the first 5 years of their existence; the Cardinals have sucked for 30 years.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 20, 2009 6:37 PM EST reply actions

So doesn't the fact that the Rays were an expansion team make them MORE of a surprise?

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 20, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

It would if they were still an expansion team when they made the World Series

The point was that the first five years are viewed as a mulligan.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 20, 2009 7:14 PM EST up reply actions

i agree with brickhaus

and just because the Cardinals went 8-8 in 2007 in the worst division in football and the Rays finished in last place in the best division in baseball, doesnt mean the Rays had less to work with going into 2008

In fact, I firmly believe that if we were in the NL Central in 2007 we wouldve had a shot at the playoffs, and at the very least been a .500 team (same as AZ Cardinals)

I dont like how you use records from 2007 to show that either team had a better chance to compete in 2008. Every one of us know the Rays had talent going into 2008, and 95% of it was already here in 2007.

I might disagree with that poll, and say the Rays were the bigger surprise but I dont like your reasoning.

by Rays4242 on Jan 20, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions

Then tell me, what are your reasons

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 20, 2009 11:17 PM EST up reply actions

My reason

is that I follow baseball closely and I don’t follow football closely. As a casual fan, I had no idea the Cards were approaching decency. Plus, on top of it, the Cards at a few points put together teams that you would think would be good, and they STILL always lost.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 21, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

I was more talking to Rays4242

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

And the fact is it's still easier to reach a Super Bowl than it is a World Series

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

I don't believe that's empirically correct

I’m pretty sure more different MLB teams have reached the World Series in the past decade or so than different NFL teams have reached the Super Bowl. Also, one more round of playoffs to get there. Also, 32 teams versus 30.

I’d agree if you said you’re more likely to get to the Super Bowl by being lucky though.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 21, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

I’d agree if you said you’re more likely to get to the Super Bowl by being lucky though

That’s basically my point. It’s much tougher to get “lucky” and win a 5 and 7 game seriest han it is to catch fire and win 3 games in a row.

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions

If I am counting correctly,

exactly the same # of different teams have reached the World Series and Super Bowl in the past 10 years. 15 different teams did it in each case. If you go back two more years (to account for the “or so”, then baseball has 17 and football has 16 different teams. That means baseball has a slightly higher % of different teams (50-47) who got to the finals since 1999. (or 57-50 if you add the other 2 years.)

The NFL also has 12 of its 32 teams (37.5) in the playoffs while baseball has 8 of its 30 (26.7) in the post-season, so there is a greater chance of different NFL teams getting to the last game than there is for different MLB teams doing so.

by bobr on Jan 21, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

This

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

Ha!

I raised this question to my wife immediately following the game this weekend. Even though it’s comparing apples to oranges to some degree, I think it has to be the Rays for many of the reasons you discussed. The Cardinals won a putrid NFC West and got hot for 3 games in the playoffs. The Rays proved themselves to be the class of the East over the mighty Red Sox and Yankees during a longer-than-water-torture 162 game season and knocked off the defending world champions after handily vanquishing the White Sox. Rays hands down, IMO.

Cannons... fire them.

www.BucEm.com - SBNation's home for discussion of all things regarding the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

by Craig T on Jan 20, 2009 6:59 PM EST reply actions

Rays

I think a lot of the surprise that comes along with the Cardinals has a lot to do with them blowing there last few games (eg being manhandled by the Patriots). Suddenly they beat these teams in the playoffs and they are a surprise.

The Rays making the world series is like the Texans getting to the super bowl. That is definetly more of a surprise.

by BrendanHarrisLives on Jan 20, 2009 7:36 PM EST reply actions

Biased

A joke of a poll. An absolute joke. Their politics and their idiotic hosts are pathetic pushing that. They have had an underachieving but talented team for the past 3 years. The Bidwills have been poor owners but the phrase that even a blind squirrel can find a nut is applicable there because of the talent acquisitions.

The Rays didn’t have the luxury of the Cardinals. The payroll disparity alone makes the poll a joke. The premise can be attacked on a variety of points. A real joke and ESPN should be embarrassed to even pose the question.

Joe

by joedobr on Jan 20, 2009 10:32 PM EST reply actions

ESPN didnt cast the votes

So why are you blaming them?

Clearly it is the rest of the nation that you are upset at, it has nothing to do with ESPN

Obvious the hosts arent pathetic and “pushing their politics(I dont even know how that applies here)”, since the entire country picked the Cards. It sounds like you are the biased one, and that poll was completely unbiased and decided by neutral fans from around the country

You say the Cards had an underachieveing talented team for 3 years? Really? Where was their talent on defense those 3 years? And the Rays didnt have talent in 2007? I guess if you say the Cards underachieved and ignore their sucky defenses I could say the same for the Rays, and that they underachieved and completely ignore their weaknesses on defense before this year and say the Rays had a ton of talent. Sounds like you are being biased

A blind squirrel can find a nut? That blind squirrel has won 2 playoff games in 60 years, yet you make it sound as if it is an easy task for the Cards to have succeeded this year.

by Rays4242 on Jan 20, 2009 11:14 PM EST up reply actions

You read PFT?

What the Rays have done is FAR more difficult than what the Cardinals could EVER accomplish, period. There can be NO DISPUTING that. Solid management is one for starters, you got to have that. The NFL gives their franchises a better shot at parity than a MLB franchise. The path for the Rays is FAR MORE perilous than the Cardinals could EVER have!

Joe

by joedobr on Jan 20, 2009 11:30 PM EST up reply actions

Which is why a higher percentage of MLB teams make the playoffs/World Series?

Football may have the appearance of parity but MLB has more parity in-fact.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions

You know Mike Greenberg or Stuart Scott?

If Hermit John Clayton said jump, would you say how high?! Come on pal. They are in the business to push buttons!

Joe

by joedobr on Jan 20, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions

joe maddon is a cardinals fan

i was expecting the rays to run away with that poll, but i guess it is a what have u done for me lately fans all voted on that one.

TB Rays in 09!!!

by RaysOfHope on Jan 20, 2009 10:41 PM EST reply actions

eh how are the cards such a big surprise? every year they seem to be the "trendy pick" in the NFC west

by walkoffwalk on Jan 20, 2009 11:22 PM EST reply actions

You accentuate my point

A decent team in the NFL is within 6-10 or 10-6. The Cardinals have a real solid offense and know what they are doing on that side of the ball. They got a head coach who knows about physical football now too.

Joe

by joedobr on Jan 20, 2009 11:32 PM EST up reply actions

This is true

They have definitely been a trendy NFL analyst pick to win the division for several years now.

Did any baseball analyst ever pick the [Devil] Rays to win their division?

by AndrewG on Jan 21, 2009 12:29 AM EST up reply actions

As long as the Yankees and Red Sox exist, I suspect that absolutely nobody will ever pick the Rays to win the division

Mainstream media is simply far too in love with one of those two teams to ever pick against them. It would not have been unreasonable to pick the Blue Jays 3 years ago to win the division, and yet nobody did anyway. Anybody can make a case for Baltimore on an almost yearly-basis, simply by stating, ‘this time, they’re not going to fall off’ because they always seem to start hot and they always fall off. It just isn’t going to happen.

by kericr on Jan 21, 2009 12:43 AM EST up reply actions

I wasn't that surprised that the Rays made the World Series because they're a really good team.

The Cardinals aren’t a good team and I have no idea how they are in the Super Bowl. This Super Bowl sucks and I hope it is possible for both teams to somehow lose.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 3:34 AM EST reply actions

Mike Tomlin is the shit.

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 21, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions

Fuck the Steelers but fuck the Cardinals with something hard and sandpapery.

I cannot deal with the Cardinals being mediocre and beating the Steelers in the Super Bowl.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

The football season is a small sample size.

The Cardinals are not mediocre. They’re one of the 3 most talented offensive teams. And their defense isn’t bat at all. They have a solid secondary, good defensive line and okay LB. They’re not in the Steelers league defensively, but the Steelers aren’t in the Cardinals league offensively.

Tools Whore

Sign Bonds!

by Tyler on Jan 21, 2009 11:15 PM EST up reply actions

The Cardinals are mediocre.

They really, really are.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 22, 2009 12:01 AM EST up reply actions

If we're taking a pre-season point of view...

… then I agree the Rays are the bigger surprise team, at least to the general population. Although, given that CHONE and PECOTA and other smart people saw the Rays as an approx 88-win team, people who are smart might not have been as surprised. Then again, an 88-win team competing against the Yanks and Red Sox isn’t a great bet.

I disagree with this, though:

-It’s much tougher to win a five, and then a seven game series, then it is to win three straight playoff games.

A five-game MLB series is nearly a toss-up between a good team and an average team, say 55% to the good team. A seven-game series is more like 60% in that situation. And with teams that usually make the playoffs, the probabilities are a bit lower. As an underdog, the probability of winning both those series is .45 x .40 = 18%.

In football, let’s say the underdog even has as good a chance of winning as .45. .45^3 = 9%. The Rays were approximately twice as likely as the Cards to make the championship, given that they both made the playoffs.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 12:13 PM EST reply actions

Agreed

I’d also point out that the Rays had home field in every series.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions

I can't believe this is even a debate...

Especially considering this is a blog that constantly talks about sample size. Most people agree that the larger the sample size(reg season), the higher probability that the best team comes out on top. A smaller sample size(the playoffs) provides a better opportunity because anything can happen in a small span of time.

The Rays not only won their division, but they topped the 2 big monsters in baseball. To top the Sox, Yankees, and even Blue Jays over 162 games would have been considered IMPOSSIBLE prior to the season. Literally, impossible…by most rational people.

The Cardinals on the other hand, had a mediocre record(worse then the Bucs who just fired their coach), yet won their division because it was so awful. Hardly anyone was shocked they won their division…in fact, many people picked them to win their division. They then went on to beat a rookie QB at home, upset the Panthers, then won another Home Game against the Eagles. Home Games in the NFL are far more meaningful then in MLB. SO they have won 3 games in a row after a shitty season in a shitty divison.

Whereas, the Rays won the toughest division in sports, one that NO ONE picked the Rays to even finish in the top 2 in the division, and most not in the top 3. They then go on to defeat the Central Champs, then the Red Sox, then finally losing steam in the WS.

Gimme a break. This isnt even close.

by td32 on Jan 21, 2009 2:44 PM EST reply actions

Sample sizes need to be adjusted between sports, though.

One football games is LOT more meaningful than one baseball game. Tom Tango once posted this, which shares how many games of each sport are equivalent to a full MLB season of 162 games:

NFL: 24 games
NBA: 32 games
NHL: 80 games

So, the NFL regular season is a bit more luck-influenced than baseball is, currently, but not as much as the 162 vs. 16 thing would have you believe.

The NBA plays way too many games, relative to baseball. In the NBA, the better team usually wins, especially over a 7 game series.

The NHL season is almost exactly the same as the MLB season.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions