Talk:List of Major League Baseball franchise postseason droughts

message: Why are there special "notes" for the 2005 WhiteSox and Astros that this was their first pennant since Year XXXX?  This smacks of recentism.  After all, there are no comparable notes on any other franchise.  If there's no substantive objection, I will remove.--DaveOinSF 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recentism

message: In the "Longest major league pennant droughts through history" section, why do we have Arizona and Florida at 4 and 5 years but we don't have the current Baltimore drought of 22 years (since 1984) or Minnesota drought of 14 years (since 1992)?  "One drought per team" is not an acceptable answer since the Braves franchise is listed three times - but not its current drought of 6 years (since 2000).  Seems like some standard has been broken at some point.  —Wknight94 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The longstanding consensus on this page (which, of course, can be revisited) is that no year in which a team accomplished the goal in question counts as part of a drought.  So the first year of the Red Sox drought was 1919 and the last year was 2003, for a total of 85 years.  If you extend the logic you are suggesting, then Cubs having made the playoffs last year and this year amounts to a one-year drought.  I think that makes no sense.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion [[List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts#Longest major league pennant droughts through history|here]] 

message: Regardless of anyone's good intentions, this page is just CONFUSING - particularly the two sections labelled "Longest droughts through history".  Yes it's technically true that a team's drought begins the year AFTER they win a title, and the last year of that drought is the year BEFORE they win their next title.  It's just weird to see the year 2003 listed as the year the Red Sox ended their drought because everyone knows that 2003 was the year of Grady Little and Aaron Boone, and not Dave Roberts and Curt Schilling.  Yes yes, all very technically correct, just not very user friendly, and not very intuitive.
Here's a proposal:  Scrap the "Start" and "End" titles.  Rename the columns "Previous title" and "Next title", and replace the years listed with the years the teams actually won the pennant/World Series.  We'd have to have a special symbol for teams whose droughts "start" with the 1903 season, but that's a minor problem.  Also, retitle the "Years" column as "Years without Title" or something like that.
If you want to sort of see what my proposal looks like (sort of), check out the List of FIFA World Cup national team droughts.  --DaveOinSF 16:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drought Start and Drought End - Ending the Confusion 

message: What exactly does "multi-decade" mean, in the context of, "World Series in which both teams were ending multi-decade pennant droughts"? Does it mean 20 or more years? 11 or more? --Mike Schiraldi 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-decade? 

message: Someone reading this article during the next few weeks should be able to easily discern that 1984 was the last time for the tigers. i realize that deep down in more complicated charts on this article the same information can be gleaned, but it isn't easy. and this info should be easy while the world series goes on. Kingturtle 04:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you are going to add the previous postseason appearance, pennant and WS championship for the other 29 teams, this information is out of place.--DaveOinSF 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, anyone who is interested in the postseason history of the Detroit Tigers is far more likely to visit the Wikipedia page Detroit Tigers than they are to here.  Here's where the drought information is kept, not full postseason histories of the 30 franchises.--DaveOinSF 05:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, i think that's the key here -- while i do believe that this page is seeing a lot of recent traffic because of the playoffs, and also that lots of people are wondering when the last time the Tigers were in it, i don't think there's much overlap. By the time people come here, they know that information. And if they don't, and really want to know, they'll find it quickly in the most obvious place -- the Tigers' entry. --Mike Schiraldi 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This sort of thing is far more relevant for 2006 World Series or Detroit Tigers than here.--DaveOinSF 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (previously [[1984 World Series|1984]]) 

message: Didn't they end a > 30 year Championship drought in 2004?  Shouldn't they be in the list along with the 2005 White Sox?  After all, the title says "World Series in which either team could have ended a 30-year-plus championship drought".  And, since they were there in 1986, wouldn't that game also go in there?  Or should the title change to "World Series in which the winning team would end a 30-year-plus championship drought" or something like that.  65.3.232.142 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2004 Boston Red Sox are not on there because they played the St. Louis Cardinals who had won a championship in 1982, not quite 30 seasons. The stipulation is that both teams have to have been without a championship for 30 seasons or more. Or am I referencing another section? ShinyHubCaps (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Sox 2004? 

message: They're still alive in 2007, so their pennant/WS drought would be only 2 seasons ('05,'06).  Everyone has been quick to change it to three, but please hold off until we know their fate.  Thanks. EnjoysButter 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More 2004 Red Sox 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_franchise_post-season_droughts#World_Series_crown_droughts_by_region
In this particular section - there should also be a column for the length of the drought by years, not just seasons. - If not an alternative table.
It is not widely known that of the current MLB teams - and their regions, the region with the longest drought for a World Series title is Washington DC - mainly because there was no team playing in Washington throughout the 1970s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s. This doesn't detract from the fact that in terms of city droughts Washington DC has the longest drought - 84 years now. Of all current baseball droughts, that of the Chicago Cubs - 100 years, and of the Washington DC region - 84 years are really the only droughts that are out of living memory. 
The next longest drought, that of the Cleveland Indians some 60 years ago, is still within the living memory of many, but I would like to see Washington DC's title drought played up more to put pressure on the current team to break the drought - something that doesn't seem to be happening probably due to the fact that the current franchise in Washington itself is relatively new. In particular, they need to strive to break their drought before the Chicago Cubs do - as otherwise they will then own the MLB's longest drought for the first time!58.175.240.247 09:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Series Droughts By Region 

message: Wouldn't it be better to use a wider definition of city for this list?  Metropolitan areas would make more sense (even though most MLB teams are now located in the hub city of their metro), and avoid misleading the reader.  The only case here on this list that is a major problem is San Francisco (while the Giants have not won the Series in the Bay Area, the Athletics have).  I would change the City column to the metropolitan area, i.e., Dallas-Fort worth instead of Arlington.  -- χγʒ͡ʒγʋᾳ (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities waiting for their first World Series crown 

message: Looks like they might get into the post-season. Very exciting. Kingturtle (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Milwaukee might be the first team to get into the post-season for two different leagues since the 19th century AA teams that joined the NL. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tampa Bay and Milwaukee 

message: This section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MLB_franchise_post-season_droughts#World_Series_in_which_both_teams_were_making_their_first_Series_appearance) seems to indicate that there are only three times that a World Series has contained two teams that were both new to the World Series. Can this be right, that only 3 times has this happened, and they were all before 1910? Considering that only six teams are depicted, it seems that it must have happened more often than that in the now-30-team league. ShinyHubCaps (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1903-1906 Section 

message: I'd like to add this information that I compiled.  Team names are abbreviated.
Year	Team(s) with longest World Series Championship Drought              	Champion
1903	Bos/SOX/Cle/Det/NYY/PhiA/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/cubs/Cin/NYG/Phi/Pit/Stl	Bos
1905	SOX/Cle/Det/NYY/NYG/PhiA/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/cubs/Cin/Phi/Pit/Stl    	NYG
1906	SOX/Cle/Det/NYY/PhiA/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/cubs/Cin/Phi/Pit/Stl        	SOX
1907	Cle/Det/NYY/PhiA/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/cubs/Cin/Phi/Pit/Stl            	cubs
1908	Cle/Det/NYY/PhiA/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/Cin/Phi/Pit/Stl                 	cubs
1909	Cle/Det/NYY/PhiA/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/Cin/Phi/Pit/Stl                 	Pit
1910	Cle/Det/NYY/PhiA/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                     	PhiA
1911	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                          	PhiA
1912	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                          	Bos
1913	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                          	PhiA
1914	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/BosB/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                          	BosB
1915	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                               	Bos
1916	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                               	Bos
1917	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                               	SOX
1918	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                               	Bos
1919	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Cin/Phi/Stl                               	Cin
1920	Cle/Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Phi/Stl                                   	Cle
1921	Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Phi/Stl                                       	NYG
1922	Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Phi/Stl                                       	NYG
1923	Det/NYY/StlB/WasS/Brk/Phi/Stl                                       	NYY
1924	Det/StlB/WasS/Brk/Phi/Stl                                           	WasS
1925	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi/Stl                                                	Pit
1926	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi/Stl                                                	Stl
1927	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	NYY
1928	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	NYY
1929	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	PhiA's
1930	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	PhiA's
1931	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	Stl
1932	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	NYY
1933	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	NYG
1934	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	Stl
1935	Det/StlB/Brk/Phi                                                    	Det
1936	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1937	StlB.Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1938	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1939	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1940	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	Cin
1941	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1942	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	Stl
1943	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1944	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	Stl
1945	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	Det
1946	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	Stl
1947	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1948	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	Cle
1949	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1950	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
1951	StlB/Brk/Phi                                                        	NYY
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.222.190 (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team(s) with the longest World Series Championship droughts, by year 

message: The information contained Active Major League Baseball postseason appearance streaks and Active Major League Baseball non-postseason appearance streaks is already represented in this article. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done the merges, though one was merged to List of Major League Baseball franchise postseason streaks rather than here.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging... 

message: I was surprised there is no mention of division title droughts. I was looking for information as to which teams have waited longest between divisional championships. Milwaukee is on the verge of their first in 29 years (maybe will clinch tonight - who knows). Who has a longer drought in this regards? It would be good info to include in the list. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's of limited interest.  Until 1994, a divisional title was synonymous with entry into the playoffs, so it is covered here.  Since 1994 the two have separated, but making the playoffs is the one people care about.  I hardly think that the 2004 Boston Red Sox, for example, went away thinking "If only we had won the division title!"  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division title droughts 

message: * Policy seems clear.  We have to adhere to what the reliable sources say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and they will only have had two seasons in which they didn't win the Cup.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only speak to the Red Sox and White Sox sources I have found.  Those droughts are clearly calculated to include the season in which the championship was won.  In those instances, at least, we should be following the sources.  I did a quick search of drought in some online dictionaries that I consider reliable sources, but couldn't find a definition that specifically addresses gaps in sports championships.  TempDog123 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In those cases, then, they aren't counting seasons, they're counting anniversaries. The Red Sox won in 1918 and in 2004. Prior to game 4 in 2004, they had not won the Series since the final game of 1918. Counting it that way, and ignoring the detail that the specific dates are naturally going to be different, that's 86 years between the points-in-time of championship wins. But it's only 85 seasons without a championship. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Draw distinctions and nitpick my sources how you will, the bottom line is that what I am proposing is based on sources and thus far I have seen no sources to support what is being proposed in the alternative.  But I don't want to beat a dead horse so I'll wait to see if anyone else chimes in.  TempDog123 (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: I'd say the discussion here was equivocal at best, with some supporting the logic that I and others have advocated, and others supporting a reliance on sources to determine this stylistic matter.  For the sake of the latter, I just now performed a two-minute Google search and immediately found Sports Illustrated and the New York Times describing the Red Sox drought as being 85 years in duration. 
Following my analysis above, that brings the count to 3 sources against 2, and I've hardly even tried.  I'd say that this frees us to use our best judgment and logic to determine the style we will use.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-discussion

message: Hi.  I just added the following to the end of the intro:
 PLEASE NOTE: This list will not be updated for 2015 until the conclusion of the 2015 postseason, so that any droughts in the process of being broken might be better appreciated. 
This seems to be an issue every year, and personally, this is my preferred way of dealing with it.  If people want to discuss this matter, then please do.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I decided this year that I have better things to do than fight over this page.  If the community is not behind my ideas, then perhaps they are not the ideas we should go with.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, now that I actually look at the page, it seems that people have put together a solution that looks pretty good.  I'm still going to mostly leave it to you all this year, but I'm glad to see good ideas making things better.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note stating will not update until conclusion of postseason 

message: Hi.  You are invited to comment on this RFC.  Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on related page 

message: Clearly some editors contributing who want to share useful information, but the editing is shit. Reads like a wall of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.121.5 (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The state of this article is...bad 

message: As in the List of World Series champions, I had edited uses of the name of the Pirates team in the early 1900s to read "Pittsburg", as that is what the team's name was for those years. This was reverted and that editor noted a willingness to bring that to Talk. So, here I am.
I'm not proposing changing the mentions of the Pirates throughout this list, but merely those that list the teams as they were known at the time. In the section "World Series in which neither team had previously won a championship" we have the Brooklyn Dodgers, Philadelphia Athletics and New York Giants - the city names associated with those franchises then - and the Boston Americans - before they were known as the Red Sox. To be consistent, it follows that if the city name changed from Pittsburgh to Pittsburgh (as it did from 1891 to 1911) that the team should be listed as such here. This also follows the convention of 1903 Pittsburg Pirates season and 1909 Pittsburg Pirates season. For that matter, the inclusion of the Pirates in the section "World Series in which neither franchise had won a championship in 30-plus seasons" should do this as well. If we can delineate between the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers, Philadelphia and Oakland Athletics, and the Boston Americans and Red Sox in these charts, delineating between Pittsburg and Pittsburgh is consistent and shouldn't be difficult. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The names and nicknames of MLB teams were much less formal and more fluid in the early 20th century.  For the sake of preventing confusion (and for allowing people to find entries for a particular franchise via text search, among other things), I think the best approach is to simply use the names as they solidified by the mid-20th century, even if that is slightly anachronistic in some cases.  For example, "Boston Americans" was never the formal name of the team now known as the Red Sox, and now that you have pointed out that that is an entry, I will advocate it be changed to "Boston Red Sox" for the sake of uniformity.  On the other hand, the Brooklyn Dodgers and Philadelphia Athletics are mid-20th century names that experienced a substantial period of stability, even if they are no longer extant.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Further comment:  Different approaches may be more or less appropriate for different purposes.  When the focus is on a single season, the best stab at a contemporaneous name is probably the best thing to use.  Thus, for example, 1909 Pittsburg Pirates season.  However, this page has a more panoramic historical view, and it seems most sensible to not track the shifting early names of each franchise.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pittsburg Pirates 

message: has added a new section entitled "Closest approaches without winning World Series." 
Personally, I would remove this section, as I think the content is a bit obscure.  However, after one WP:BRD cycle, I'm taking it here to the Talk page. 
The page already gives sufficient attention to which teams have not won the World Series.  The number of appearances at each round of the postseason can be found at List of Major League Baseball postseason teams, and I don't see a good reason to recapitulate that information here but only for 7 of the 30 franchises.  
Finally, the concept of "fewest wins short" is completely unexplained.  If this section is going to stay, there should be text above the table that clearly explains this concept.  I do understand what it means, but again, I don't think we need to tabulate it.  One could just as easily tabulate such things for teams with long droughts, and I don't see a good place to draw a line. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused by this section because it says that the Seattle Mariners have been 6 games short of a World Series title. This is true, but it is confusing because the Mariners are currently the only MlB team to not reach the Workd Series, hence two of those games include LCS games. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Closest approach" section 

message: The opening section has the sentence: "The three longest championship droughts in history were ended recently by the Red Sox (85 seasons, ending in 2004), the White Sox (87 seasons, ending in 2005), and the Cubs (107 seasons, ending in 2016)." Should we still be using the term "recently" for events that took place 18 years, 17 years, and 6 years ago, respectively?  
Per MOS:DATED "terms such as...recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020." How about changing the sentence in the opening to:
* "The three longest championship droughts in history were ended in the 21st century by the Red Sox (85 seasons, ending in 2004), the White Sox (87 seasons, ending in 2005), and the Cubs (107 seasons, ending in 2016)." 
or
* "Since 2004, the three longest championship droughts in history were ended by the Red Sox (85 seasons, ending in 2004), the White Sox (87 seasons, ending in 2005), and the Cubs (107 seasons, ending in 2016)."
Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "recently" in the opening section 

message: If the Expanded Postseason started in 1981, should the drought from 1981-1995 (15 Seasons) not be on the list? Bluepanther512 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle's 1977-1995 Drought in regard to 'Longest postseason droughts in the expanded-postseason era' 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress