They didn't Win but they were still good

[SmedIndy]

It doesn't - it's quite valid - and it can further the BRM arguement on another thread.

It's just wrong to blame the commissioner. The '81 season was deservedly fouled up. A pox on all houses, good sir knight, for that season.

This goes with an asterisk. The 1994 Montreal Expos were on pace to win 104 - 105 games, but did not make the playoffs of course, since there were no playoffs that year.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Another good one, Sopalt. The Expos had a .649 winning percentage until that season came crashing down.

The Big Three -- all teams that won more than 2/3rds of their games but finished second:

1909 Cubs 104-49 .680 6.5 GB of the Pirates.
1942 Dodgers 104-50 .675 2.0 GB of the Cards.
1954 Yanks 103-51 .669 8.0 GB of the Tribe.

[TimmyB]

The '48 (96-59, 1 out on a one game playoff loss) and '49 (96-58, 1 game out) Red Sox can get added to this list.

The '48 gang lost a one game playoff with the Indians. The '49 bunch had a went into a weekend season-ending series with the Yankees needing to win only one to clinch. They lost both.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
1962 Dodgers 102-63.

I think Bill James rates the 1962 Dodgers as the greatest 2nd place team of all time.

The 1993 San Francisco Giants are up there as well.

I'm not sure what to make of the 1967 Tigers. They SHOULD have won the pennant that year, and they probably WERE the best team. However, they arguably BLEW IT, so do you qualify here if you BLEW IT, or only if you were REALLY, REALLY GOOD, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE WAS BETTER?

The 1993 Giants were REALLY, REALLY GOOD, and played well down the stretch; the Braves were flukishly amazing.

The 1962 Dodgers were GREAT, but had injuries, and had a 2nd half fade.

The 1967 Tigers simply failed to assert themselves in a year where they had the most talent.