RetroTweets - What If They Had Divisional Play and Wild Cards Starting in MLB in 1901?

RetroTweets - What If They Had Divisional Play and Wild Cards Starting in MLB in 1901?

"What if" is a fun exercise.  In a series we will call "Retro-Tweets",  let's examine some "what ifs" about baseball history.

Let's start with the Deadball Era, 1901-1919.  WHAT IF the 8 team AL and 8 team NL had been split into AL East and NL West Divisions, and each year there had been two wild cards, so that every year there was a full seven game wild card round followed by an LCS round, followed by a World Series?

First, the American League.

John J. McGraw - fiery Manager of the New York Giants, former Baltimore Oriole 

The American League in 1901 had the Milwaukee Brewers and the Baltimore Orioles in it.   The Baltimore Orioles and Milwaukee Brewers would only play in the AL in one season, 1901.  They would move in the following season & not re-appear again until 1954 and 1970 respec?tively.  

One of them would move to New York and become the New York Yankees—do you know which one?

In AL, this is how the East and West divisions might logically have been split up:

 AL East

Philadelphia Athletics

Boston Red Sox

Baltimore Orioles

Washington Senators

AL West

Milwaukee Brewers

Chicago White Sox

Detroit Tigers

Cleveland Indians

[Note:  some of these team nicknames were different back in 1901; Cleveland was known as the "Naps", Boston as the "Red Stockings" and so forth, but for purposes of this article we'll stay with the modern franchise tags.]

In the National League, this is how the East and West divisions might logically have been split up:

NL East

New York Giants

Brooklyn Dodgers

Philadelphia Phillies

Boston Braves

NL West

Chicago Cubs

St. Louis Cardinals

Pittsburgh Pirates

Cincinnati Reds

Well, now that you look at it, these divisions make excellent geographical and logical sense.  

Big Ed Delahanty - HOF LF for the Phillies - batted .400 twice, hit 4HR in a game, hitting the dead ball in the dead ball era.  

Now lets look at the actual results from 1901:

1901 American League Team Statistics and Standings AL Detailed Standings RetroTweet – Divisional Play

American League East 1901

Rk	Tm	W	L	W-L%	GB	GBsum	R	RA	Rdiff	SOS	SRS	pythWL	Luck	Home	Road	1Run	vRHP	vLHP	≥.500	<.500
2	BOS	79	57	.581	4.0	4.0	5.5	4.4	1.1	-0.1	1.0	82-54	-3	49-20	30-37	14-14	57-37	22-20	40-38	39-19
4	PHA	74	62	.544	9.0	14.5	5.9	5.5	0.3	0.0	0.3	72-64	2	42-24	32-38	16-15	62-51	12-11	35-41	39-21
5	BLA	68	65	.511	13.5	32.5	5.6	5.6	0.1	0.0	0.1	67-66	1	40-25	28-40	14-14	46-47	22-17	34-41	34-24
6	WSH	61	72	.459	20.5	67.5	4.9	5.6	-0.6	0.1	-0.6	59-74	2	31-35	30-37	12-16	44-58	17-14	44-53	17-19
	Avg	67	67	.500			5.3	5.4				67-67		39-28	28-39	15-15	50-49	17-18	37-47	30-20

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table

American League West 1901

Rk	Tm	W	L	W-L%	GB	GBsum	R	RA	Rdiff	SOS	SRS	pythWL	Luck	Home	Road	1Run	vRHP	vLHP	≥.500	<.500
1	CHW	83	53	.610	---		6.0	4.6	1.4	-0.2	1.2	84-52	-1	49-21	34-32	15-12	56-41	27-12	44-34	39-19
3	DET	74	61	.548	8.5	13.0	5.4	5.1	0.3	0.0	0.3	72-63	2	42-27	32-34	21-15	57-44	16-17	38-37	36-24
7	CLE	54	82	.397	29.0	118.5	4.8	6.0	-1.2	0.1	-1.1	54-82	0	28-39	26-43	12-17	41-56	13-26	34-64	20-18
8	MLA	48	89	.350	35.5	164.0	4.6	6.0	-1.3	0.2	-1.2	53-84	-5	32-37	16-52	17-18	40-59	8-30	29-70	19-19
	Avg	67	67	.500			5.3	5.4				67-67		39-28	28-39	15-15	50-49	17-18	37-47	30-20

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table

Summary:   The Red Sox win the AL East, the Chisox win the AL West.  The two wild cards would have been the Philadelphia As and the Detroit Tigers.  Tigers v. Bosox and Chisox v. As, Wild Card round, then ALCS round.   The Bosox were very good and would have beaten the Tigers, while the Chisox had better pitching than the As, so the Chisox win.  Chisox v. Bosox in ALCS is very close—both fine clubs—probably a tossup, slight edge to Chisox, but the Bosox of 1901 were a fine team. 

1901 National League Team Statistics and Standings –

National League East 1901

Rk	Tm	W	L	W-L%	GB	GBsum	R	RA	Rdiff	SOS	SRS	pythWL	Luck	Home	Road	1Run	vRHP	vLHP	≥.500	<.500
2	PHI	83	57	.593	7.5	7.5	4.8	3.9	0.9	-0.1	0.8	83-57	0	46-23	37-34	26-23	70-49	13-8	38-42	45-15
3	BRO	79	57	.581	9.5	11.5	5.4	4.4	1.1	-0.1	0.9	81-55	-2	43-25	36-32	23-18	66-49	13-8	41-38	38-19
5	BSN	69	69	.500	20.5	50.5	3.8	4.0	-0.2	0.0	-0.2	66-72	3	41-29	28-40	27-24	57-58	12-11	31-49	38-20
7	NYG	52	85	.380	37.0	133.0	3.9	5.4	-1.5	0.2	-1.3	49-88	3	30-38	22-47	14-19	42-68	10-17	31-66	21-19
	Avg	69	69	.500			4.6	4.6				69-69		37-31	31-37	20-20	56-57	12-12	37-49	32-19

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table

National League West 1901

Rk	Tm	W	L	W-L%	GB	GBsum	R	RA	Rdiff	SOS	SRS	pythWL	Luck	Home	Road	1Run	vRHP	vLHP	≥.500	<.500
1	PIT	90	49	.647	---		5.5	3.8	1.7	-0.2	1.5	92-47	-2	45-24	45-25	17-16	70-43	20-6	47-32	43-17
4	STL	76	64	.543	14.5	26.5	5.6	4.9	0.7	-0.1	0.6	79-61	-3	40-31	36-33	22-19	62-47	14-17	42-38	34-26
6	CHC	53	86	.381	37.0	133.0	4.1	5.0	-0.9	0.1	-0.8	58-81	-5	30-39	23-47	17-22	46-71	7-15	32-67	21-19
8	CIN	52	87	.374	38.0	140.0	4.0	5.8	-1.8	0.2	-1.6	46-93	6	27-43	25-44	18-23	40-73	12-14	34-65	18-22
	Avg	69	69	.500			4.6	4.6				69-69		37-31	31-37	20-20	56-57	12-12	37-49	32-19

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 8/1/2013.

Summary:  The Phillies win their first division title in the NL East in 1901, while the Pirates win the NL West going away in 1901.  The wild cards are the Cards in the West and the Brooklyn Dodgers (Superbas?) in the NL East.  So Cards v. Phils and Dodgers v. Pirates Wild Card.  This playoff is much easier to predict—the Pirates really did have the best team in the NL in 1901.  They were stacked both offensively and with great pitching.  The Phils had offense but not much pitching, similar to the Cards.  The Phils would probably edge the Cards, while the Pirates would flatten the Dodgers, then the Pirates would beat the Phils in the NLCS.  The World Series would have gone to the Pirates.

John Frank "Buck" Freeman - Slugging RF and 1B for the Boston Red Sox - hit 25 HR in 1899 - In an 11-season career, Freeman was a .293 hitter (1235-for-4208) with 82 home runs and 713 RBI in 1126 games, including 199 doubles, 131 triples, 92 stolen bases, a slugging percentage of .462, and a .346 OBA.   Born Catasauqua, PA, 1871, died Wilkes-Barre, PA 1949 age 77.  

OVERALL:  This is fascinating.  The Phillies waited until 1950 to win anything in eight team NL league play.  The Cardinals did not win a pennant in eight team NL league play until the 1920s, but here they get into the playoffs via the wild card.   The Brooklyn Dodgers, who would win only one pennant in the 1910s and then wait until 1941, get into the wild card their first year.  On the AL side of the ledger, it's more of the same old same old, except that the Chisox walk away with a division title their first year.  The As were uniformly excellent in the dead ball era through 1914.  The Tigers likewise, especially after they picked up that young kid Cobb "the Georgia Peach."  And the Boston Red Sox, well, the curse of the Bambino had not yet hit, and they were as fine a ballclub as you would want to see in 1901--pitching, hitting, defense--the Red Sox had it all in 1901.

Come to think of it, these are playoffs we'd want to see today. In the deadball era, every player knew how to bunt; every player knew how to steal a base; stealing home was a common occurrence; the hit and run play was scientifically executed; players routinely played for one run at a time, but there were also guys who could hit home runs and long doubles and triples. Everyone in the lineup, including the catchers, could run, and no one swung from their heels on every pitch.  Strikeouts were rare and everyone tried to keep the ball in play.  Some fielders were superb while others were pretty awful, so you never knew what might happen on a ball hit to the field.  And the distances to the outfield--were gargantuan--500 feet to CF, and often 400 feet or more to the alleys.  Some parks were 400 feet down the lines, or were uneven, 400 to one field but only 325 to the other field.  And fans during playoff games stood in the outfield behind a rope--if the ball went into the crowd, it was a ground rule double.  It was baseball, but not the baseball of today.

Ty Cobb - 4,191 Hits, .367 lifetime BA, 11 Batting Titles

Anglo Saxon Bible Texts - The Gospel of John Beginning Excerpts

The Anglo-Saxon Version of 
The Gospel of John

Annotated transcription from the following edition:

Euangelium secundum Iohannem: The Gospel of Saint John in West-Saxon. Bright, J.W. (ed.). The Belles-lettres series. Section 1. English literature. D.C. Heath & Co.: Boston/London, 1904

Transcribed and annotated by

Michel van der Hoek

This is work in progress. Many layout questions are still being dealt with. Annotations are also stil being edited. Bear with me while I deal with these questions. 25 October 2003

INCIPIT EUANGELIUM SECUNDUM IOHANNEM

Caput 1

1 On frymðe wæs Word, and þæt Word wæs mid Gode, and God wæs þæt Word. 2 Þæt wæs on fruman mid Gode. 3 Ealle þing wæron geworhte ðurh hyne; and nan þing næs geworht butan him. 4 Þæt wæs lif þe on him geworht wæs; and þæt lif wæs manna leoht. 5 And þæt leoht lyht on ðystrum; and þystro þæt ne genamon. 6 Mann wæs fram Gode asend, þæs nama wæs Iohannes. 7 Ðes com to gewitnesse, þæt he gewitnesse cyðde be ðam leohte, þæt ealle menn þurh hyne gelyfdon. 8 Næs he leoht, ac þæt he gewitnesse forð bære be þam leohte. 9 Soð leoht wæs þæt onlyht ælcne cumendne man on þisne middaneard. 10 He wæs on middanearde, and middaneard wæs geworht þurh hine, and middaneard hine ne gecneow. 11 To his agenum he com, and hig hyne ne underfengon. 12 Soðlice swa hwylce swa hyne underfengon, he sealde him anweald þæt hi wæron Godes bearn, þam ðe gelyfað on his naman: 13 ða ne synt acennede of blodum, ne of flæsces willan, ne of weres willan, ac hig synt of Gode acennede. 14 And þæt Word wæs flæsc geworden, and eardode on us, and we gesawon hys wuldor, swylce acennedes wuldor of Fæder, þæt wæs ful mid gyfe and soðfæstnysse.	1 Ælfric renders this verse in the following manner three times: ‘On frymðe wæs Word, and þæt Word wæs mid Gode, and þæt Word wæs God’ (Hom. i, 40, 70, 358); in Gregory’s Dialogues it runs thus: ‘In fruman wæs þæt Word, and þæt Word wæs mid Gode, and God wæs þæt Word.’ (Hecht’s ed. p. 240). Cf. for further verses the parallels in Ælfric’s homilies and Gregory’s Dialogues. 4 The Anglo-Saxon version is here in accord with a non-Clementine reading (Words-worth’s Ms. Z) which connects this verse with the preceding one in the following manner; et sine ipso factum est nihil; quod factum est in ipso uita erat. So too in the Greek o gegonen (=quod factum) was sometimes joined to what follows. 12 †Cura Past. 84, 22; Dialogues p. 161 14 †Ælfric (Hom. i, 40)—þæt wæs ful mid gyfe etc. The translator has, apparently for clearness, introduced þæt wæs; and he has followed the variant reading of plenum with the abl. gratia et ueritate (cf. Luke 1:28)
Þys godspel gebyrað ðrym wucon ær myddanwyntran on þone frigedæg. 15 Iohannes cyþ gewitnesse be him, and clypaþ þus cweðende, ‘Þes wæs þe ic sæde, “Se ðe to cumenne is æfter me wæs geworden beforan me, for þam he wæs ær þonne ic.”’. 16 And of his gefyllednesse we ealle onfengon gyfe for gyfe. 17 For þam þe æ wæs geseald þurh Moysen; and gyfu and soþfæstnes is geworden þurh Hælend Crist. 18 Ne geseah  næfre nan mann God, butan se ancennedaSunu hit cyðde, se is on his Fæder bearme.	15-18 Rubric: The gospel for Friday, three weeks before Christmas (Friday after the second Sunday in Advent). 15 Hic erat quem dixi uovis, ‘Qui post me uenturust est ante me factus est, quia prior me erat’ (cf. 1:30). Wycliffe has also ‘This is whom Y seide.’ The Royal and Hatton MSS have þe ic of sægde.
19 And þæt is Iohannes gewitnes: Þys [godspel] gebyrað on þone sunnandæg ær myddanwintra. Ða þa Iudeas sendon hyra sacerdas and hyra diaconas fram Ierusalem to him þæt hi axsodon hine and þus cwædon, ‘Hwæt eart þu?’ 20 And he cyðde and ne wiðsoc, and þus cwæð, ‘Ne eom ic na Crist.’ 21 And hig axsodon hine and þus cwædon, ‘Eart ðu Elias?’ And he cwæð, ‘Ne eom ic hit.’ Ða cwædon hi, ‘Eart ðu witega?’ And he andwyrde and cwæð, ‘Nic.’ 22 Hig cwædon to him. ‘Hwæt eart þu? Þæt we andwyrde bringon þam ðe us to þe sendon. Hwæt segst þu be þe sylfum?’ 23 He cwæð, ‘Ic eom clypiendes stefn on westene. Gerihtað Drihtnes weg, swa se witega Isaias cwæð.’ 24 And þa þe þær asende wæron, þa wæron of sundorhalgon. 25 And hig axsodon hine and cwædon to him, ‘Hwi fullast þu, gif þu ne eart [Crist], neElias, ne witega?’ 26 Iohannes him andswarode, ‘Ic fullige on wætere; tomiddes eow stod þe ge ne cunnon. 27 He is þe æfter me toweard is, se wæs geworden beforan me; ne eom ic wyrðe þæt ic unbinde his sceoþwang.’ 28 Ðas þing wæron gewordene on Bethania begeondan Iordanen þær Iohannes fullode. http://wordhord.org/nasb/john.html http://wordhord.org/nasb/toc.html#_New_Testament The Anglo-Saxon Bible http://wordhord.org/nasb/