...and the poor getting poorer? A record 8 teams lost at least 90 games this season.

I think some teams are thinking that finishing 79-83 is worthless. If they aren't competing for a title, then they're stripping their team for a rebuild.

I think some teams are thinking that finishing 79-83 is worthless. If they aren't competing for a title, then they're stripping their team for a rebuild.

 

This is what I see happening. Teams look at what Chicago and Houston did to rebuild their teams.

If you're not in the post-season and able to compete for a title, what good does .500 or winning any amount of games do?

If you're not in the post-season and able to compete for a title, what good does .500 or winning any amount of games do?

I used to think .500 was the Reds' management's goal. Be good enough to keep fans in the stands but not consistently good enough to have fans demanding a payroll large enough to ensure consistent playoff contention.

 

These days, .500 would be welcome.

I hope it’s an aberration. Do we know what that number looks like over the last 10-15 years?

 

Having three 100-game winners also seems unusual.

I hope it’s an aberration. Do we know what that number looks like over the last 10-15 years?

 

Having three 100-game winners also seems unusual.

 

Hence the rich getting richer part of the question.

Found part of it. There were three teams to win 100 games each of the last two years. It hadn’t happened for 15 years before that.

 

Still haven’t found the number of 90-game-losing teams over time and I’m just not clicking around Baseball Reference all afternoon.

Without thinking too much about it, I'd have to say the answer is "yes" to the OP. And it's pretty much self-perpetuating, because everyone wants to follow "the smart business model". So the teams that are at/near the top at the middle of the year basically turn the teams at/near the bottom of the pack into their own farm system. Forget the risk of bringing someone up from triple-A who might be able to help you...go ahead and trade a few of your minor league guys for someone who's already a proven MLB talent. So, the poor team gives up their star/superstar and gets poorer...and the rich get richer by adding them, and giving up less in return. It may make business sense, but it makes for lousy baseball.

I hope it’s an aberration. Do we know what that number looks like over the last 10-15 years?

 

Having three 100-game winners also seems unusual.

 

Weirder was the year the Giants and Braves each won 100 but the Giants came up short and missed the playoffs in the old 2 division days before the strike and expansion.