Talk:List of Major League Baseball postseason teams

Untitled

OK, the East-West teams are seriously jumbled in the 69-93 charts. I will attempt to sort them out. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles

Why are the Orioles listed in the American League West column? Juve2000 (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What the...?

This page makes no sense at all. And I know baseball. What is this page listing? Why are some team names in boldface? Why only data from 1969 on? What do the numbers in the tables mean? Sue D. Nymme (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The page is keeping statistics on the number of appearances each team has made in the different playoff rounds. It ignores years prior to 1969 as the World Series was the only playoff round. Between 69 and 93 there were 2 playoff rounds, and after 94 there are 3 rounds. Teams in bold are the ones that have appeared in the respective playoff round for 2008. They could have done a better job of explaining this in the main page, and they should move the Baltimore Orioles to the Eastern Division column in the "1969-1993" section.Juve2000 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Sue D. Nymme (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

New Table

I just added this table. It's only updated through 2011, and I can't do more than that today. Others may want to help with this, and people may have various comments.

I would like to add a table that gives the number of appearances at each level for each team, all in one table.

Once we have decided on a format for these two tables, I tend to think that the tables previously on this page can go away.

Comments welcome. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I have added a second table as described above. Personally, I would be in favor of removing the tables with everything sorted by division and by time period, but I would be interested to hear an argument as to why we should keep them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed page overhaul

Should the old tables, dividing out the number of postseason appearances by era and by MLB division, be deleted and replaced by new tables giving a more compact version of the most relevant information? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The page currently looks like this. The first ten tables give totals of postseason appearances divided out by era and by division. I tend to think that this is too much fragmentation and that it does not tend to inform the reader in a very compelling way. The final two tables are my recent addition, and I think they summarize the topic in a more compact and readable way. I certainly used the older tables as a resource while compiling the new tables, so I am thankful to them in that way. However, I think this page would be more streamlined and more informative if the older tables were deleted and the new tables remained. With all due respect to the editors who have worked on this page in the past, I'd like to hear their thoughts as to why we should continue to divide out the numbers by era and by division.

This page has very few links to it and is not in the {{MLB playoffs sidebar}} or the {{World Series}} template, but I think the new compact format may help this information become a more prominent part of the MLB postseason suite on Wikipedia. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. This page either needs a total overhaul or deletion. Either way for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Summoned by bot. I definitely think a more concise, updated, and easier to read version should replace the overwhelming tables the page currently has. The page sis kind of tough to navigate and break down. Meatsgains (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the previous commenters, the two new sections at the bottom are much easier to understand than the mess at the top. I'd be in favor of dumping the era tables at the top and keeping just the 2 sections at the bottom, then the page might actually become useful enough to get some inbound linkage.--John, AF4JM (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has expired, and all received comments are in favor of the change, so I will go ahead and make the change. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball postseason teams to make a change

We need to make a change to ragmenting the charts,it's important to divide the last 20 years into separate tables for each time a team changes leagues . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin1990813 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would that be important? We could divide the Giants' postseason appearances into pre-Bonds and post-Bonds eras, but there's no real reason to do so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no end of ways in which the numbers could be subdivided. The problem is that each subdivision has the side-effect of making the tables harder for a casual reader to absorb. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We need to explain the tigers had stay in AL East during 1995~1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin1990813 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need to explain that? This is not an article about which teams were in which divisions during which years. This is an article about which teams were in the postseason. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see Colin's point, in that the number of teams in a league affects how easy it is to make the postseason. But I think the readability of the table is more important, so I would be opposed to breaking it up further. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Extensive reformatting of this page

Should the extensive reformatting of this page stand? Or should it be reverted to its former format? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

In November 2015, after an RfC discussion (see above), this page was overhauled so that its focus was a compact table giving postseason appearance for each team in chronological order, with different typefaces indicating the outcome. That is, a year in bold (e.g., 2020) indicates a World Series championship, while a year in bold italics (e.g., 2020) indicates a World Series appearance but loss, and so forth. I was the user who wrote this, so I clearly am not impartial, but I've always felt that this representation was elegant and informative. Here is the 2015-2021 format, in its most recent iteration.

On 19 April 2021, Evirdenilmiss made drastic changes. There are now different columns for each outcome, so that appearances for each team are no longer listed in chronological order. I appreciate Evirdenilmiss' motivation and the work they put into this revision. However, I feel that the result is more clunky and less intuitive. The chronological progression of the former treatment is now gone.

This is ultimately an aesthetic disagreement, and I'm not sure where to go from here. Clearly Evirdenilmiss and I disagree, though we haven't had any actual discussion. Perhaps others can chime in and help us make a decision. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it correct to interpret this RfC as asking us to choose between this version [1] and this version [2] ? Besides BlueMoonlet could you please explain why you did not feel like it was useful to try to reach consensus with Evirdenilmiss prior to launching a RfC? JBchrch (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the current revision, as it displays the information without relying on a confusing legend like the first table does. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Revert to the status quo ante, then work toward a consensus version that gets at some of the goals of the revision, more properly. In particular, we cannot rely on font style changes alone to convey information, for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. They can only be used as an adjunct, a stresser/highlighter of the information. See also info on sortable tables at MOS:TABLE and HELP:TABLE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It's more easier to navigate. Sea Ane (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Response from user who made changes

What Swordman97 mentioned was my intent. Now I understand that the downside is that the years are not in order (because of different postseason finishes), so if someone were to change to a different legend format by using colored font instead of simply using a combination of bold/ italics, etc. from the original table, I would say that it would still be an improvement, as it would be less confusing and in chronological order. Example: black (with hyperlink) for WC loss, orange for DS loss, blue for LCS loss, green for WS loss, red for WS win. Evirdenilmiss (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)