As a Phillies fan, I have been sitting back enjoying the difficulty the Mets are having putting the final nail in their last division rival's coffin (i.e., the Phils). The Mets were swept by the Pirates over the weekend while the Phils took three from the reeling Astros.

The Phils, of course, have no hopes of winning the division at this stage of the season. They are really vying for the wild card, and are now just one game behind this morning's odd man out in the NL West a.k.a. the wild card leader, the Dodgers.

It's really the only pennant race that still matters, sadly. Yes, the NL West has been a dog fight and if the Twins should topple the Tigers in the AL Central, it could be an historic comeback. However, the loser in either case is still in control of the wild card spot. The Tigers would have to out-choke the '64 Phils and the Chisox would have to get very hot in order for Detroit to miss the playoffs. The Dodgers may lose the division but do have a one-game cushion in the wild card to soften the blow a bit.

The Phils are the only team that has a legitimate shot at a playoff spot that don't have a plan B to fall back on. That alone may be the best argument for Ryan Howard's MVP case, whether the Phils nab the wild card or not.

Anyway, the travails of the Mets made me look into how teams have clinch their division or league titles in the past. What I found was that there were a number of teams that won titles without ever clinching anything.

Of course, this has happened three times in the wild card era due to the eccentricities of the new tiebreaker rules. Since 1994, if two teams are tied for the division title, and the loser would still be the league's wild card, there is no need for a one-game playoff. The winner is determined by a labyrinthine set of tiebreakers: head-to-head competition THEN intradivision record THEN record in the past 81 league games THEN their record in their last "n" games (meaning games prior to the last 81 so long as they are not against each other, starting with the 82nd and then preceding backwards to the start of the season).

In 2005, the Yankees were declared the AL East champ with one game to play and the Red Sox one game back since if they ended up tied, they both has qualified for the playoffs and New York had a better head-to-head record (10-9). The final game was between the Yankess and Red Sox at Fenway. The Red Sox won 10-1 to make the playoffs. The Yankees rested their starters midway through the game since the game was (relatively) meaningless to them. Had the Yankees beaten the Sox and the Indians beaten the AL Central Champion White Sox on the final day, the Indians and White Sox would have played a one-game playoff for the wild card. The reeling Indians lost 3-1.

In typical Red Sockian fashion, Boston declared themselves co-AL East champs even though the rules in place said otherwise: "Co-division champs. That's what I'm calling it," Red Sox owner John Henry said after the game. "I can understand why there isn't [a playoff], but frankly, I would have liked to have had one. It would have been nice to settle the division championship." And even the Red Sox biggest, or at least most influential supporter, Bud Selig felt the need to chime in, "If I were running the Red Sox, I would declare myself cochamps…one could make that case."

In 2001, the NL Central winner, Houston, was decided in a similar fashion. The Astros were tied with the Cardinals but won the head-to-head series (9-7), so St. Louis had to settle for the wild card.

In 2000, the A's finished a half-game ahead of the Mariners (91-70 to 91-71). The A's were not forced to play their last game (a postponed game at Tampa Bay) because they won the season series 9-4 against the M's.

Prior to the eccentricities of the playoff tiebreakers in the wild card era, there were a number of divisions who never clinched at least according to the typical tiebreaker rules.

In 1972, the Red Sox trailed the Tigers by one-half game with one fewer game played (86-70 to 85-70). The Red Sox lead Detroit by one-game going into the final series of the season, which had both teams facing off at Tigers Stadium. The Tigers took games one and two, 4-1 and 3-1, to go up 1-1/2 games. The Red Sox won the final game, 4-1. Even though the ALCS did not start until three days later, the schedule that year was shortened after a strike at the start of the season. The remaining schedule was the schedule, and the Tigers were declared the division champs. Given that Detroit took two of three from the Sox, they didn't have much of a case.

In 1938, the Cubs (89-63) won the NL crown by two games over the Pirates (86-64). However, the 1938 season was 154 games. Both teams had two ties (probably called on account of weather or darkness) that were never replayed. The Pirates missed two other games (probably postponements) and, therefore, had a decision in just 150 games. The Cubs of course, went on to be swept in four games by the Yankees and were outscored 22 to 9. Maybe it didn't matter who the National League sent up against that team, but today those games would be made up, probably during the season, and a clear-cut winner would established (unless one team would be the wild card of course).

In 1935, the Tigers (93-58 with one tie) won the AL title by three games over the Yankees (89-60). However, the Tigers were three games short of a full schedule (if you include the ties), and the Yankees failed to play five games.

In baseball's formative years, there were oddities with the league winners on almosta yearly basis.

In 1915, the last Federal League title was decided by percentage points. The Chicago Whales (86-66, 3 ties) somehow beat the St. Louis Terriers (87-67, 5 ties) even though they had two fewer decisions.

In 1908, the Tigers won the AL crown again under odd circumstances. They had a half-game lead over the Indians, 90-63 to 90-64. The Tigers had one tie and the Indians 3.

In 1907, the Tigers (again) won the AL crown by 1-1/2 games over the Philly A's (92-58, 3 ties vs. 88-57, 5 ties) even though the A's had one fewer loss and failed to play 9 games (5 ties and 4 cancellations).

In 1906, the White Sox (93-58, 3 ties) won the AL title by 3.5 games over the Highlanders nee Yankees (89-61, 4 ties). Both teams played the full slate of 154 games if you count the ties, but again if the ties were replayed, potentially the AL winner might have been different.

In 1905, The A's won the AL crown by two games over the White Sox even though they were tied in wins. Philly had a 92-56 record (4 ties) and Chicago had a 92-60 record (6 ties).

In 1904, the Boston "Americans" (i.e., not-yet-Red Sox) topped the then-Highlanders by a game and one half even though they were tied in losses, 95-59 (3 ties) to 92-59 (4 ties). Shades of 2005 with different team names.

In the one-year Players National League (1890), the Boston Reds (81-48,1 tie) beat the Brooklyn (Ward's) Wonders (76-56, 1 tie) by 6.5 games. But I defy you to tell me how many games constituted a full slate for this league. Teams played between 128 and 138 games. Boston played 130 and Brooklyn, 133.

In 1889, both leagues had some odd circumstances surrounding their league crown. The New York Giants won the NL crown by one crown over the Boston Red Stockings (cum Braves) by one game although they both had 83 wins (83-43 with 5 ties vs. 83-45 with 5 ties). The American Association crown was won by the Brooklyn Bridegrooms (i.e., Dodgers, 91-44, 3 ties) over half a game over the St. Louis Browns (i.e., Cards, 90-44) though both had 44 losses.

There were also many leagues (1884 Union Association, 1884 AA, 1890 AA, and 1891 AA) that had teams fold without being officially eliminated from the league crown.

So the next time you see a nice, neat list of division and league winners, just keep in mind that a number of those teams won under less than spotless circumstances. And while you are laughing at the Mets for their clinching woes (which will likely change with four at home against the Marlins), keep in mind that there are a number of championship teams that never clinched a damn thing.