Is it just more, or...

Valid points, spnited. You and MM are making similar arguments.

The '55 Dodgers weren't much of an upset. Especially because they had been NL champs in '47, '49, '52 and '53 with largely the same roster. I stand corrected on that one.

The '69 Mets, however, came out of nowhere -- both considering their previous history, and in how far back they were in the NL East that summer. Plus, the Orioles were an absolute powerhouse.

And I think, unlike MM, that public perception plays a large role in what makes an "upset." Just because the Tigers matched up well with the Yanks, just because the Mets had a very, very talented young team in '69, just because the '01 D'backs had a cinch Hall of Famer (Johnson) and a borderline HOFer (Schilling) at the top of their rotation, doesn't mean they're not still big upsets.

If *everyone* believes Team A is going to win, and Team B comes away with a victory ... then it's an upset, no matter how good the underestimated Team B happens to be. If Team A happens to be insanely more talented than Team B (a la '85 Villanova), then it's a monumental upset.

Tonight was not a monumental upset. Still, it was an upset.

 

Had a 12-win Jacksonville beaten a 14-win Indianapolis in the NFL playoffs last season, people would have considered that to be an upset.

I'm not saying the Tigers were shit this season. If anything, I've been defending them more than anyone on these boards this past month. There can be upsets between two good teams. Very common story in sports.

 

from what I remember ... was 5 years old firt time I went, Bums moved to LA when I was 8 ... very small, cozy place. Seemed like every seat was on top of the field.
Very raucous crowd at all times..a great little place.

 

Maybe it's just how I view the world, but I draw a distinction between surprises and upsets. Alabama beating Miami in 1992 and Texas beating USC last year in the national championship games would be considered surprises because the betting line and the prognosticators were heavily leaning towards the eventual losers, but really, you can't call Texas winning an upset at all. Alabama is a little different because of the way they beat down the Canes, but it wasn't like undefeated Miami, outscoring opponents 55-3 against lil' ol' Alabama, three losses and got in by the skin of their teeth.

Sure, a lot of people are surprised that the Tigers won the series (and the last three games, as well as the way they shut down that offense). But the way I heard their backstories thrown around, you'd think it was actually the 27 Yankees playing the 119-loss Tigers, when for want of a couple of games here and there it could have been the Tigers with home-field for the playoffs.

If anything, I'd consider Oakland sweeping the Twins more of an upset, because Minnesota was bar none the hottest team in the AL in the second half of the playoffs, and the A's made them look stupid in a hurry. But again, I'd be loathe to actually label it an upset.

About the only legit upset that would happen in the playoffs this season is if the Cards, Padres or Dodgers beat Detroit or Oakland in the Series.

 

Now, all that remains of Ebbets Field is a sign in an apartment development...

 

I understand where you're coming from on surprises vs. upsets. I think anytime there's a surprise outcome, people start to label it an upset without any hesitation.

I think had the Tigers finished the season strong, as opposed to playing their B team and losing the AL Central in a sweep to the Royals to close the season, maybe people would have thought more about the Tigers. And that's where the surprise -- and the rush to call this upset -- comes in.

 

Anyone think the Mets' celebration might be a tad more low-key?

 

Right, and it doesn't help their image that they DON'T have a long history of winning, so they didn't have the latitude to not be defined by their late-season swoon (the Yankees were playing .500-ish ball down the stretch, but they had nothing to play for, and people were also more willing to accept that as an abberation than they would for the Tigers, where you got the sense everyone was waiting for the other shoe to drop).

As for your Colts-Jags example, I'd consider it an upset because I'd consider the Colts a markedly better team than the Jags. Now I run the risk of opening the whole perception can, but I think you can objectively make the case that the Colts were better. Conversely, a two-win margin over 162 games is but picayune.

 

But strong pitching often carries the day in a best-of-five series. While I think you can make a case that the Yankees were more talented than the Tigers (and with all those Murderer's Row 2K7 references, it was hard not to think it), the question about which had the better team wasn't as easily settled. The Tigers led the toughest division in baseball most of the way and their young arms (Verlander, Bonderman, Zumaya) didn't shit the bed down the stretch, so they established their bona fieds with me.

You can make the case, but I think perception outstripped reality by a good bit (I also suspect that if the Braves made the playoffs, a lot of people would have them winning at least one series out of sheer habit).

 

No fucking way is this one of the biggest upsets in baseball history. New York won all of two more games that Detroit all season despite playing in an inferior division.

Good pitching beats good hitting in the playoffs 90 percent of the time. That's why New York lost. Their pitching sucked in the regular season and it sucked in the playoffs. They were exposed for the frauds that they are.