Talk:List of Major League Baseball franchise postseason droughts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


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)

  • "Recentism"? That's a new one on me. Or a recent one, anyway. Arguably, they shouldn't be listed at all, since they are the defending league champions. However, it seems silly to drop them and then have to re-add them. I expect the notes are intending to say that they both had droughts which are now ended... but then you would need to do that for other previous entries with long droughts, and since there is a separate listing for long droughts anyway, it does not seem necessary. Maybe the notes should be reworded to simply say "Defending league champion" and be done with it. Wahkeenah 18:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Why say "defending champion" there but then not in any of the other lists? THe notes are now gone. The information is already in a separate listing on this page. DaveOinSF19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I still say that, technically, the current champions are not in any "drought" condition. Whatever. Wahkeenah 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I think the intent was to have a list indicating when the last time each franchise had won a pennant. So the subtitle could be renamed, get rid of the "drought" terminology, but I will choose not to do so and leave that to the WP community. DaveOinSF 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Ja. It's not really important enough to start an Edit Jihad. Wahkeenah 01:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I changed my mind. Some of the other wording was awkward in any case. Wahkeenah 01:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusion here[edit]

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)

  • They arbitrarily cut it off after 13, as the list would start to get ridiculously long. The last few are listed because the teams are too recent to make that "cut". However, those short ones should be chopped from the list, due to the inconsistency. Their own "drought" is already duly noted earlier in the article. In fact, I will just go ahead and do it. This article is confusing enough without this perplexing minutia. Wahkeenah 12:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There were some droughts missing from this section. I'm pretty sure it's all correct now. --BlueMoonlet 21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how you measure the length of the droughts but it seems to me that if the Red Sox won in 1918 and again in 2004 that is 86 years and if the White Sox won in 1917 and again 2005 that was 88 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

Drought Start and Drought End - Ending the Confusion[edit]

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)


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)

  • Good question. It's hard to tell, since all the examples are 20 or more years. I take it to mean 20 or more, as that effectively constitutes a "generation", which might be what the original editor had in mind... an interval sufficiently long that a significant portion of the public doesn't remember the last one... as with the Tigers. Wahkeenah 08:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(previously 1984)[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

How about instead of placing the information in the first chart, we mention it in a sentence or two in the beginning? Just during the post season? Kingturtle 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Red Sox 2004?[edit]

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. 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

More 2004 Red Sox[edit]

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)

World Series Droughts By Region[edit]

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! 09:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

World Series in which neither franchise had won a championship in 30-plus years[edit]

Doesn't anyone here think it's peculiar to have a heading worded as such and then include teams that didn't exist 30 years prior? I understand what the author is trying to get at, but either word the list differently or remove teams that didn't exist (i.e. AL teams prior to 1930, Florida Marlins, etc.) 30 years pervious to the World Series in question. I think that is sensible, no? EnjoysButter 08:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the wording are you uncomfortable with? I think World Series like 1997, where one team had never won and the other hadn't won in a long time, are exactly what this article is about. As another example, imagine if this year's was a Cleveland-Colorado matchup. Two teams, neither of which had any championships in recent memory. I feel this is noteworthy, and makes sense both logically/technically and in spirit. --Mike Schiraldi 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the nature of the list, but it doesn't really make sense to include teams in a "drought" of 30+ years if the team didn't exist for 30 years.
I liked the list as it was originally composed; a list of teams that had both gone 30 or more years since a title. In your example of CLE-COL, it's a bit unfair to include the Rockies as having a 30-year drought, since they've only existed for half that time.EnjoysButter 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
But the word "drought" doesn't appear anywhere within the section. Yes, it's in the title of the article, but there are several other sections in the article that are about teams that never did things, rather than teams that existed for a long time and haven't done anything for a while. Again, i'm happy to change the wording, but i'm not sure which part of it you'd like me to change. I'm sure we can work something out, though -- anyone who enjoys butter is a friend of mine. --Mike Schiraldi 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It's all good. The new disclaimer does the trick now anyway. Hey, if you *didn't* enjoy butter I would think you were strange.EnjoysButter 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Teams not around for less than 30 years should NOT be on this list. Make a different list for the remainder. Kingturtle (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cities waiting for their first World Series crown[edit]

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)

Tampa Bay and Milwaukee[edit]

Looks like they might get into the post-season. Very exciting. Kingturtle (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

1903-1906 Section[edit]

This section ( 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)

Team(s) with the longest World Series Championship droughts, by year[edit]

I'd like to add this information that I compiled. Team names are abbreviated.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


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)

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)

Division title droughts[edit]

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)

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)

Red Sox and White Sox droughts[edit]

How should the length of a drought be calculated? One argument appeals to common sense, the other advocates following the same convention as sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To comment, please scroll down to Further discussion, or click here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Dicussion predating the RFC[edit]

Note to reader: Early conversation took place via edit summaries. [1] [2] [3] [4]. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends upon reliable secondary sources. When reading this page, I noticed that the total years listed for the Red Sox and White Sox title droughts were, respectively, 85 and 87 years. These were both uncited, as most of this article appears to be. I knew that, at least with respect to the Red Sox and White Sox, these numbers were contrary to most secondary sources that I have seen. When I corrected this I was reverted by User:BlueMoonlet and told "[y]ear in which a championship was won does not count as part of drought." I have seen no reliable secondary source standing for this proposition. I undid BlueMoonlet's reversion while directing him to the policy that Wikipedia does not right wrongs. Simultaneously, I posted a representative sample of the reliable secondary sources on his talk page that stand for the proposition that these droughts were 86 and 88 years. The response I received was that such a change could not be made without making similar changes to the entire article. I know of no such Wikipedia policy that says you cannot edit part of a page without editing the rest of the page for inconsistency. I don't know about the other droughts, but I know that the Red Sox and White Sox droughts were inconsistent with the vast majority of reliable secondary sources. Now they are not.TempDog123 (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a reasonable point in what you say, but we could do with a bit more WP:Civility as well as common sense.
The need for common sense is evident in your remark about consistency. Your edit now would lead the reader to believe that the Red Sox' streak was 31 years longer than the Giants' recently-ended streak, when in fact it was 30. That is patently wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. When/if you get WP:Consensus that the change should be made, then it needs to be made consistently throughout the page.
Regarding civility, you have ascribed motives to me (I particularly object to the link to WP:Tendentious editing) and you have consistently given your opinion as fact without showing any evidence of listening to others. That is not how WP:Consensus is built. The question you are raising is fundamentally a matter of style and interpretation, not of fact. Sure, you can find some sources that use the style you would prefer, but that doesn't carry the argument by itself. The main problem with the system you propose (and you're right that it's not much on this talk page; there must have been conversations in edit summaries or something, and I apologize for implying otherwise) is that it would imply that the team that won the championship last year is in the middle of a one-year drought (even if they go on to win back-to-back championships), which is simply absurd.
If you are willing to engage in an actual conversation, I am certainly willing to do the same, and even possibly to be convinced. But half-measures are just not an option. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Your proposition that "it would be absurd" can be retorted with a simple "where are your sources?" This is your own opinion and original research. You've now reverted my sourced edits with an edit summary that they are "not really needed." I'll have to strongly disagree. Citing sources is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia and this article currently has zero sources. It is basically a case of your opinion as to how it should be vs. what the sources say, and Wikipedia policy dictates that the sources must win. I do apologize if I come across as uncivil. I don't have a lot of time to edit Wikipedia so when I do check in I try to make my points directly and efficiently and sometimes that rubs people the wrong way. But I do feel strongly that this article suffers when I've demonstrated that the vast majority of reliable secondary sources say the Red Sox and White Sox droughts were, respectively, 86 and 88 years, and this article says differently basically because you think it must be so. Why don't you call for consensus and see what other people have to think? Some users I know who consistently edit MLB pages are User:Muboshgu, User:Baseball_Bugs, and User:Bagumba. See if they can add some insight because we are obviously at an impasse. TempDog123 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Routine arithmetic does not count as original research. Sources are theoretically needed to establish the years in which championships and other playoff achievements occurred, but since those are such common knowledge we have not bothered for this article. The question you are raising is basically how one should set up the arithmetic problem, and that is a matter of style that we can resolve with Wikipedia norms.
Yes, I would be most glad to have input from experienced users such as the ones you name. The question is this: Is the team that won a championship last year in the middle of a 1-year drought? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
But it's not a question of whether the arithmetic is correct. I agree that you don't need a citation for the proposition that 2003 - 1918 = 85 and 2004 - 1917 = 87, or 2004 - 1918 = 86 and 2005 - 1917 = 88. The question is which calculation we should use. Reliable secondary sources overwhelming use the latter. You make a good point re: one-year droughts and could probably write a persuasive essay on the subject, but Wikipedia is not the place for it because Wikipedia doesn't lead it follows (and I'm not accusing you of tendentious editing that just happens to be where the quoted policy is located). At this point I would strongly suggest a call for consensus because you and I are likely to just keep going in circles.  :-) TempDog123 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we've both stated our positions adequately. I'm tempted to respond to your last post, but I feel I already have (which is quite all right; you would feel the same if I were to say anything more). I've posted an RFC, which will hopefully attract some comment. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. I have asked the editors I mentioned above to share their thoughts. Hopefully they will. TempDog123 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

  • Policy seems clear. We have to adhere to what the reliable sources say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This kind of thing gets tricky. If the Blackhawks win the Stanley Cup it will be "their second championship in four years", yet it will be only the third anniversary of their previous Cup win. It gets to the point of just what are we observing? Seasons? Or anniversaries? And is there even a valid source definition for a "drought"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
...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)
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)
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)
  • So, about those sources... Actually, looking at them more closely, only 3 of the 8 sources cited by TempDog123 clearly support his point by mentioning a drought of 88/86 years in the body of the article ([5][6][7]). Another 4 sources mention the 88/86-year drought only in the headline but say nothing of the kind in the body of the article ([8][9][10][11]), and it is well known in the journalism world that headlines are generally written by someone rather lower on the totem pole than the author of the article, and do not carry the same authority. Finally, one of TempDog123's cited sources ([12]) never mentions an 86-year drought at any time, speaking only of the 86-year span between championships. Just something to consider as the conversation proceeds. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
  • If the sources say 88/86 anywhere, in the headline or body, then that is it. Both are correct. If a team wins back to back championships, it means they have a zero year drought but have spent one year since they won their last championship. I have commonly heard the Red Sox drought being 86 years. That is the correct one IMO and from what the sources say. Just word it accordingly. There are better things to argue about than this. Arnabdas (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Your example of a 0-year drought is consistent with using 85 rather than 86 years for the Red Sox 1918-2004. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the point is that there are clearly multiple sources that say the Red Sox drought was 86 years. If someone can find a source that says the Giants are currently in a 0-year drought I will gladly support it being put into the article.TempDog123 (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It is about semantics obviously which is why this whole argument seems silly. If multiple RS say the 86 year drought, that is what should be listed. When citing "years," the sources are referring to complete seasons as opposed to calendar years it seems so 86 season drought. Arnabdas (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
        • No, if you go by "complete seasons", it's only 85, because 1918 and 2004 were pennant seasons, and there are only 85 seasons for the 1919-2003 period, the non-pennant seasons. There is an obvious way around this, though: Forget the colloquial and ambiguous term "drought", and instead report the total years elapsed from one pennant clinching to another. 1918 through 2004 then becomes 86. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


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)

Note stating will not update until conclusion of postseason[edit]

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)

  • It's unfortunate that nobody listened to you. I came to this article to see how many years it had been since the Blue Jays were in the playoffs and was told "0." Useless information, and it isn't even true to say their postseason drought is over since the postseason hasn't even started yet. For all anyone knows some disaster could cause it to be cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)

RFC on related page[edit]

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

The state of this article is...bad[edit]

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 (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)