Does winning the NL or AL pennant still mean as much as it did back in the day? I was thinking of this while discussing with the old man how the magazines Ive been buying all pick the Dodgers to lose in the world series.

We both think it would be awesome to win the NL pennant, but losing in the WS (especially to the Yanks or Sox who all of our coworkers are die hards of one or the other) would be tough to handle.

the next WS the Dodgers play in will be the first one of MY adult life, where I can remember all the details (I was 10 in 1988 so its not that clear in my head). I would be thrilled to be in the WS, but falling short of winning it all would be rough, especially after having suffering the Knicks falling short twice and the Rams losing a SB the way they did.

so does winning the pennant still impress? does it still matter like it did before they added all the playoff rounds? Ive been reading a lot about the history of the game and back then winning the pennant was the tops, if you won the WS it was like icing on the cake.

no..second place is the first loser...when i own my mlb team if we don't win every year i'll kill myself, and countless others

How distinct ARE the AL and NL nowadays in the fans' minds? I think that's where a lot of it lies. When you really view them as two completely separate leagues whose champions play each other for overall bragging rights, then the pennant means a whole lot. It's a league championship, yeah?

But I think lately the distinctions between the leagues are becoming less and less significant. Interleague play is probably a major factor in this.

Leonard, you can manage my team any day

lazy bastard, jeffrey

i too agree. though it sill seems to mean a lot more than in the other sports

Says the guy who can't be bothered to use proper capitalization.

camden folks dont need capitolization

yeah, i don't much care for interleague play, team

it was cute at first, but its run its course.

it matters as much as making a Super Bowl matters. Which is not so much

yeah, it wasnt always like that though. The other sports, it didnt matter, the runner up was forgotten instantly, still is. But in baseball, the pennant meant the world. not any more, which is sad.

id rather my team fuckin be the worst team in the league than go to the big one and lose!!

well, not really, but thats a fuckin terrible feeling..that yanks loss to the dbacks was fuckin painful..

it couldnt have been THAT bad, they did win 4 before that right?

you wanna talk painful? the 94 Knicks losing was painful, and when the Rams lost SB 36 I was on suicide watch for a week!

does it matter when a team has been bad for so long and then wins the pennant like the Tigers did? I would think the Braves fans by the 4th pennant were not that proud, but that first one had to be sweet as hell.

As a Tigers' and Cubs' fan, I can tell you it means a lot. There's no overestimating how much winning the pennant last year meant to the Tigers and the entire franchise. And I can tell you that, based on how close they got in 2003, winning the NL pennant would be huge for the Cubs.

So, yes, it still does mean something.

YEah it sucked to lose that one, the way game 7 went down. But what about the two great last AB wins for the Yanks a few nights earlier? Plus, they had won 4 WS, including the 3 previous, how greedy can I be? I would much rather have my team in the finals and lose than not be competitive.

I remember the 94 Knicks and that one hurt too.

It's next years consolation prize. Something to make you feel better about where the team is or where they are going and something to make the programs look all cool for marketing.

I'm a Braves fan, we have a ton of division crowns and what maybe 5 or 6 NL titles in the past 15 years. Only one title (1995)

1991 was special (Kent Hrbeck pulling Ron Gant of the bag still pisses me off as does Cox's decision to let Charlie Liebrandt give up the series losing HR in consecutive seasons 1991 and 1992.

Getting to the big one having a great series and losing 2 years in a row sucks ass.

All in all though I think I remember the NL titles more fondly than even the 1995 title. Part of it is knowing they should have had 3 WS titles by that point and part probably being that I was getting older and there for less interested in baseball than I was at 11 and 12.

The 91 season was magical and beating the great pirate team in the NLCS was very special. The 91 series was also one of the best I can remember.

92 was even more memorable with the Francisco Cabrera dribbler to Bonds with Sid no knees Bream rounding third and winning it.

I also remember Justice with a game winning HR into the seats at Riverfront stadium to win one of the NLCS games in 1995.

If a few small happenings were different and the freaking Braves could have one one more game after they went up 3-0 in (LEYRITZ!!!!!) 96 They'd have 4 WS titles from 91 to 96. They were easily the best team in the league from 92 to 96 but their final track record does not show it and the Yankees will be the team to remember for that decade.

So yeah it's nice to win the pennant, but in the end it's a lot better to have the hardware.

When the Astros got the pennant for the first time ever, I was thrilled. We may have lost the next 4 games in a row, but getting there was enough for me (at least for now).

It absolutely matters. Then again, I watch pretty much every pitch of about 140 Braves games a year and recall wanting to punch my dad in the face for telling me it was just one game when the Mets scored like 8 runs in a single inning off John Smoltz in April of 2002 I think it was.

ok, as a Braves fan the first one in 91 must have meant a lot, but how was losing that WS? was it enough to just get there after so many bad seasons?

and what about each subsiquent pennant, do they hold the same amount of pride as the first one, having one WS title to show for them? does the 95 WS title erase any bad memories of losing any of the other WS?