Talk:National League Central

2001 Co-Division Championship
Obviously this is a source of contention so I would like to see some discussion before a change is made to the article.


 * On both the St. Louis Cardinal Page and the Houston Astros page of the Official Site of the Baseball Hall of Fame (A neutral and very credible baseball source) you see * National League Central Co- Champions 2001. and then *The Astros and Cardinals were declared co-champions of the NL Central in 2001, based on their identical regular season record. Due to the fact that the Astros edged the Cardinals in head-to-head games, 9-7, they were seeded as the division winner in the post-season, and the Cardinals were seeded as the wild-card. For all practical purposes the Hall of Fame is considered the official keeper of baseball records.


 * On the St. Louis Cardinal section of Mlb.Com (the official MLB site though obviously teams do control some of the content on their team pages) as part of the 2001 Team timeline you have a note of the historical relevance of 2001 being "the first shared championship in major-league history" . If Major League Baseball objected to this concept then they obviously would not allow this on the official MLB site.


 * A major League Baseball Senior Vice-President is quoted by a writer of the Toronto Sun on a baseball site, in reference to the Cardinal's Busch Stadium 2001 Co-Championship banner, "It's basically the wild card, but it's also co-champions,"


 * Finally in reference to the more recent AL East 2005 division championship title, Baseball's Commissioner Bud Selig was quoted by the Boston Globe as saying "If I were running the Red Sox, I would declare myself cochamps." showing that even the commissioner of baseball has no problems with the declaration of Co-Championship in a division, partly because of the historical precedent of the 2001 NL Central shared title.

I think these are all compelling reasons why the relevant Wiki articles should be updated to included the historically important 2001 Co-Division Championships of the Houston Astros and St. Louis Cardinals. If there is not serious objections and compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll make the edit in a few weeks time. Agne27 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes what you say is true, there were co-champions, but I'm not sure what your contention as to the article is. Would you like St. Louis to be added along with Houston to the division champion line for 2001? What you mention is partially covered at the end of the section, but I could see where a bit more detail could be added. If this is what you would like to do I don't see anything wrong with it, although I also don't find it to be too pertinent of an issue. Blinutne 23:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently in the article Houston is listed as the sole championship with the note at the end of article more or less designating the Cardinals as solely the Wild Card. I feel the article would more accurately represent the situation by noting that the Cardinals were Co-Champions with the Astros and that the seeding of the Cardinals as Wild Card was just for post season seeding. As for being a pertinent issue, on the surface I would agree with you because co-championship is well established (especially with the HOF source). However, wait till we get some Astro fans chimming in. :p Then you'll see the contention. Agne27 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a big deal either (That politician guy from the I-55 Series aside). I think most knowledgeable baseball would acknowledge they were co-champions and be done. The HOF considers it a done deal and we all know how much they love controversy (sarcasm intended for the Bull Durham fans). Houston should obviously be listed more prominent because they did get the Divisional seeding but then followed with St. Louis listed as Co-champions. It's probably worth it to mention the historical part too. Make it more wiki-worthy.205.157.110.11 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose adding St. Louis to the champions line would be the more proper action to take, since they were technically awarded a co-championship. If this is to be done, though, it obviously has to be referenced since it is a bit uncommon, but that was probably going to happen regardles. And, actually, I am an ardent Astros fan, and Houston DID win the season series....and the championship last year. Blinutne 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should find a better source than the Cardinals' home page. An official listing of division champions by MLB.com would be good. I really think that the Cardinals' website will do anything to paint themselves in the best light. The article on the Red Sox does not mention that they were co-champs in 2005. The article on the Dodgers does not mention that they were co-champs this year.Politician818 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Official Baseball Hall of Fame also considers 2001 to be a co-championship. Secondly, the Cardinals page is on MLB.com and nothing can be published there without their approval. Agne 05:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can explain this a little more, as to why MLB and the Cardinals both have them listed as "Co-Champions" in 2001. It's Major League Baseball's fault. This marked the first time ever a team had tied for both the best, and second best teams in the league. It was also the first time those very teams ended the regular season playing each other! The commissioner's office made the statement before the final regular season game that the Astros and Cardinals would NOT play a tie-breaker, because it wasn't needed, since they both had the best record in the NL, one would obviously be the Wild Card and the other the first place seed. Had the Cardinals won 2 out of the 4 instead of the 1 out of the 4, they would have finished 2 games ahead of Houston, instead of tied, and the head-to-head would have been tied, but meaningless. Since that was the case, because the teams can NOT play each other in the first round, it was decided that since the Astros won the final series against the Cardinals, giving them the season edge, they would be the top team, while the Cardinals would be the Wild Card. This was the first time the Wild Card/Division winner/League winner was a tie. This being the case, the Cardinals petitioned the commissioner's office to call themselves "Co-Champions", which was granted, as they did win the Central, technically. This is why it's on their website, which IS a branch of the MLB's website. The Astros don't have to call themselves "Co-Champions" and I don't believe they do, which is why the Hall of Fame would classify the Cardinals as "Co-Champions" and the Astros as "Champions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.178 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you go to mlb.com/stl/history and click the "Year by Year Results" link, it clearly says that the Cardinals finished in second place in 2001. It matters not that they were "co-champions"; the Astros are recognized as the division winners that year. Thus, I'm going to change the article. The MLB's own site outranks the Hall of Fame site, and the 2005 Red Sox and 2006 Dodgers are not listed as co-champs on this site.24.6.40.199 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ironic: Pittsburgh is NL Central; Atlanta is NL East
Isn't it ironic that Pittsburgh is in the NL Central while Atlanta is in the NL East, although Atlanta (84° 23' 17" W) is technically West of Pittsburgh (79° 59' 46" W)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.244.139 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Six Teams
What is the logic of having 6 teams in this division which puts the teams at a disadvantage versus the other divisions with 5 teams and especially the AL west with only 4 teams. Is there an explanation of this somewhere? Seems it would be worth adding. Wjousts (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you don't need an article to explain this. First, two teams were added in 1998- the DevilRays (now Rays) and the Diamondbacks (DBacks). One went to the American League, the other to the National League. When this was done, there was now an ODD number of teams in either league, meaning one team had to switch leagues, so it would be even again. When the Brewers moved from the AL to the NL, the AL then went from 15 to 14, so it was even. Also, the NL went from 15 to 16, an even number. The reason you HAVE to have an even number is because TWO teams play each other, not 3 or 5. On any given day, you'll have either every team playing or have some with days off. With an even number, every player on every team gets exactly the same number of days off. Now, getting back to the Brewers, it was either going to be the Royals or Brewers that was determined by MLB, and the Brewers chose to go over. This is all because of the 1998 expansion that added 2 teams- ONLY ONE to each league, unlike the 1993 expansion which added two to the SAME league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.102.69 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is an explanation. What's the big deal about an odd number of teams? Everybody will ultimately play the same number of games. How is having an odd number of teams so much worse than the clearly unfair situation of having some teams have to compete against 5 other teams, some 4 other teams and some only 3 other teams in order to make the play-offs. Wjousts (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No they won't. They play 162 games, an odd number won't play the same amount, one would have to play either 161 or 163 games. You have to have an even number of teams to play the same number of games in a season. Think about it this way. You have 3 teams. Two play each oher while one sits out. Now, say the loser plays the one that sat out. That means one team has played 2 games while the other 2 have played only 1 in the same time period. See why it HAS to be even? Because of an odd number, one will play more or less than the others during the same time frame. By the way, the reason for 4 is NOT because of an odd number, it's because there are 3 divisions- the East, West, Central. If it went back to the East/West like it was, you'd STILL HAVE to have an even number of teams for that explaination earlier- one team will play more or less than the others, but you'd have something like 10 or so in a division, which is one reason it was split the way it was. In the 1993 expansion one team went to the NL East the other to the West.--75.0.32.57 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're thinking about the teams that sat out then playing each other while the one that played 2 sits out, baseball won't do that, because that would put too many off days into an already long schedule, making the season which normally spans 6 months go even longer, pushing the playoffs into November, possibly December. With all these open stadiums, there's NO WAY they'll play baseball in snow!!--75.0.32.57 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The NL Central had six teams so that each league would have an even number of teams. Now each league has fifteen teams (an odd number), which means that there has to be at least one interleague series playing at all times during the season (because one team is left out in each league when all the teams play each other). Previously the MLB didn't want to have year-round interleague, which is why they kept an even number of teams in each league even though there was an imbalance.24.6.40.199 (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I’ll catch her since the 1980s in the Central division guys at work at
All catchers since the 1980s in the Central division 138.207.218.22 (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)