Are the playoffs really a crapshoot?

[Bellhorn04]

This question has been generating some debate again. I thought we should have a separate thread for it, and a poll to boot.

[Slasher9]

i am going with limited degree.

my assumption is that crapshoot = luck, correct?

my list for playoff success would be:

Pitching

Defense

Clutch

Momentum

Hitting

Managing

Luck

[notin]

i am going with limited degree.

my assumption is that crapshoot = luck, correct?

my list for playoff success would be:

Pitching

Defense

Clutch

Momentum

Hitting

Managing

Luck

 

The counterargument is that the teams in the postseason should have a certain degree of pitching, defense, hitting, and managing. They had to be doing something right to make it that far and excel over a 162 game season.

 

That leaves clutch, momentum, and luck. So the question is, how much do momentum and clutch depend on luck?

[Slasher9]

The counterargument is that the teams in the postseason should have a certain degree of pitching, defense, hitting, and managing. They had to be doing something right to make it that far and excel over a 162 game season.

 

That leaves clutch, momentum, and luck. So the question is, how much do momentum and clutch depend on luck?

 

all are not created equal. the astros pitching was superior to the yankees pitching. yankees are playing golf.

[Bellhorn04]

One little side issue I'd like to raise is 'luck' vs. 'randomness'. I think there are some shades of difference between the two terms when applied to baseball, and there is also some crossover.

 

For me, pure luck is something like Tony Clark's double bouncing into the stands in Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS and preventing what could have been the series-winning run from scoring.

 

Pure randomness is something like a starting pitcher not having his best stuff on that particular day, as may have been the case with Cole in Game 1 of the WS. (On that point I'll refer once again to Mike Mussina's neat theorem that in 32 starts he would have everything working in 8 starts, nothing working in 8 starts, and something working in 16 starts.)

[notin]

all are not created equal. the astros pitching was superior to the yankees pitching. yankees are playing golf.

 

Well, the Astros starting pitching was superior to the Yankees. But I get where you're going.

 

Of course, in 2015, the Mets' starting pitching was superior to the Royals' SP as well. It is possible to make it a bullpen game...

[notin]

One little side issue I'd like to raise is 'luck' vs. 'randomness'. I think there are some shades of difference between the two terms when applied to baseball, and there is also some crossover.

 

For me, pure luck is something like Tony Clark's double bouncing into the stands in Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS and preventing what could have been the series-winning run from scoring.

 

Pure randomness is something like a starting pitcher not having his best stuff on that particular day, as may have been the case with Cole in Game 1 of the WS. (On that point I'll refer once again to Mike Mussina's neat theorem that in 32 starts he would have everything working in 8 starts, nothing working in 8 starts, and something working in 16 starts.)

 

I think a lot of what we call choking (or chocking) is sometimes based on a pitcher's fatigue as well. Cole threw his career high in IP during the regular season in 2019, and then threw another 35 IP in the ALDS and ALCS. What we are calling choking might be simple fatigue. He did have his velocity going for him the other night, but he was still also very hittable and probably was not hitting his spots. And a loss of command can certainly be attributable to workload, as it can effect the repeatability of his release point...

[TylerD]

100 percent yes. There was MAYBE 4 or 5 on this board that predicted Washington would give Houston a good series, but hardly anyone predicted this blow out so far and possibly a sweep. It really just depends who is the hotter team at that time.

 

Except the Red Sox.... If they hit 100 plus wins it's just a given they're gonna f*** you up in the playoffs

[Slasher9]

One little side issue I'd like to raise is 'luck' vs. 'randomness'. I think there are some shades of difference between the two terms when applied to baseball, and there is also some crossover.

 

For me, pure luck is something like Tony Clark's double bouncing into the stands in Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS and preventing what could have been the series-winning run from scoring.

 

Pure randomness is something like a starting pitcher not having his best stuff on that particular day, as may have been the case with Cole in Game 1 of the WS. (On that point I'll refer once again to Mike Mussina's neat theorem that in 32 starts he would have everything working in 8 starts, nothing working in 8 starts, and something working in 16 starts.)

 

man...i can still picture that double. thank god it bounced over the wall.

god = luck

[moonslav59]

100 percent yes. There was MAYBE 4 or 5 on this board that predicted Washington would give Houston a good series, but hardly anyone predicted this blow out so far and possibly a sweep. It really just depends who is the hotter team at that time.

 

Except the Red Sox.... If they hit 100 plus wins it's just a given they're gonna f*** you up in the playoffs

 

100% yes?

 

So MN had an equal chance as the Yanks? (And Mn wasn't even the worst team in the playoffs!)

[Kimmi]

This question has been generating some debate again. I thought we should have a separate thread for it, and a poll to boot.

 

Just when I said I was out of this debate, you pull me back in. LOL

 

I am shocked by the results of the poll so far. Shocked, I tell you.

[Kimmi]

One little side issue I'd like to raise is 'luck' vs. 'randomness'. I think there are some shades of difference between the two terms when applied to baseball, and there is also some crossover.

 

For me, pure luck is something like Tony Clark's double bouncing into the stands in Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS and preventing what could have been the series-winning run from scoring.

 

Pure randomness is something like a starting pitcher not having his best stuff on that particular day, as may have been the case with Cole in Game 1 of the WS. (On that point I'll refer once again to Mike Mussina's neat theorem that in 32 starts he would have everything working in 8 starts, nothing working in 8 starts, and something working in 16 starts.)

 

I guess it's a fine line, but I believe in terms of the stat stuff, randomness and luck are the same thing.

[TylerD]

100% yes?

 

So MN had an equal chance as the Yanks? (And Mn wasn't even the worst team in the playoffs!)

 

Yes. I have said since the day I signed up on this forum that baseball playoffs are much different than other sports..... Any team has a chance. Teams go cold quite a bit in the playoffs. Granted Houston beat the Yankees, their offense hasn't exactly been explosive and now it's catching up to them against the Nats who are underdogs in this series. Yankees were the Twins kryptonite all year, hence why I was hoping Oakland would advance (I still hold true to my word that Oakland would have given the Yankees a very good series) All that matters in baseball is making the playoffs and you have a chance to beat anyone. (hence Cardinals beating the Braves) Nats beating the Dodgers.

 

In the NFL if a Wild Card team like the Texans, Colts, Bills take out a top seed like the Pats it's a MASSIVE upset that nobody saw coming (07 Giants run) Baseball in my opinion isn't the same. Yes it's a massive upset but once the playoffs hit I kind of expect anyone to compete.

[Kimmi]

In addition to the chart that I posted in the other thread, some of the fine folks at Fangraphs also recently looked for statistical correlations between playoff wins and pretty much any other factor. This study analyzed data from every playoff team from 1996 to 2015. They came up empty.

 

The correlation coefficient between regular season wins and post season wins was 0.007.

 

This study even took combinations of factors, and came up with no correlation. The best correlation was 0.063.

[redsoxrules]

100 percent yes. There was MAYBE 4 or 5 on this board that predicted Washington would give Houston a good series, but hardly anyone predicted this blow out so far and possibly a sweep. It really just depends who is the hotter team at that time.

 

Except the Red Sox.... If they hit 100 plus wins it's just a given they're gonna f*** you up in the playoffs

 

Go look at Washington's record since July. This should be no surprise to anyone

[Kimmi]

Here's another one, covering the years since 1995, when the wild card era began.

 

The best team in the playoffs each year, averaging 98.3 regular season wins, have a winning % of 55.7% in the postseason.

 

The worst team in the playoffs each year, averaging 87.8 regular season wins, have a winning % of 53.2% in the postseason.

[TylerD]

Go look at Washington's record since July. This should be no surprise to anyone

 

I know there record, don't need to check. It's still an upset. Give me a break that you saw the Nats beating Houston two straight in Houston with Verlander and Cole pitching.

 

I find these threads hilarious. Create a poll, ask an opinion.... I share it and then people s*** their pants. I'm not changing my mind. ANYONE can f***ing beat anyone in the MLB playoffs. Yes it can happen in all sports as it did in the NHL last year but it just doesn't surprise me to see an underdog come out victorious in baseball.

 

End of discussion on my part.

[Slasher9]

An unbalanced schedule will always have anomalies like that.

Until there is 100% balance schedule a WC team will have just as good as shot as the ALC winner....

[Kimmi]

From Baseball Prospectus: "Sure, some team has probably got the best chance, but of the eight teams that make the Division Series, they all pretty much have a 10-15 percent chance of emerging as the champion. Maybe one’s got a 20 percent chance. It means that they’ve got an 80 percent chance of going home sad."

 

If you took an extreme mismatch of a 97 win team (.600) against a 65 win team (.400), the .400 win team would still win a best of 5 series 31% of the time. The teams in the playoffs are much more evenly matched.

[Kimmi]

I know there record, don't need to check. It's still an upset. Give me a break that you saw the Nats beating Houston two straight in Houston with Verlander and Cole pitching.

 

I find these threads hilarious. Create a poll, ask an opinion.... I share it and then people s*** their pants. I'm not changing my mind. ANYONE can f***ing beat anyone in the MLB playoffs. Yes it can happen in all sports as it did in the NHL last year but it just doesn't surprise me to see an underdog come out victorious in baseball.

 

End of discussion on my part.

 

I'm on your side Tyler. I wouldn't say they are 100% a crap shoot, but it's pretty darn close. In any short series, randomness is king. The data is overwhelming in that regard.

[Kimmi]

Other things that do not help a team win in the post season:

 

Momentum

Clutch

Home Field Advantage

An Ace

Experience

Young, hungry players

[Bellhorn04]

Here's something that fascinates me:

 

Over the last 20 years, 3 teams, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Oakland, have made the postseason, including Wild Card games, a combined total of 29 times.

 

Results:

 

Elimination in Wild Card Game - 5 (and no wins)

Elimination in LDS - 21

Elimination in LCS - 3

Appearances in World Series - 0

 

If the playoffs really are a pure crapshoot, these teams have been INCREDIBLY snakebit.

[TylerD]

I'm on your side Tyler. I wouldn't say they are 100% a crap shoot, but it's pretty darn close. In any short series, randomness is king. The data is overwhelming in that regard.

 

Thanks Kimmi! I'm all for people agreeing and disagreeing, but I swear lately it feels like people are attacked for having an opinion on this site. Regardless You're probably right.... Maybe I jumped the gun a bit with the 100 percent but I remember the Cardinals 06, 2011 World Series were huge upsets. Same with Marlins over the Yankees in 03/04? Can't remember that exact year.

[TylerD]

Here's something that fascinates me:

 

Over the last 20 years, 3 teams, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Oakland, have made the postseason, including Wild Card games, a combined total of 29 times.

 

Results:

 

Elimination in Wild Card Game - 5 (and no wins)

Elimination in LDS - 21

Elimination in LCS - 3

Appearances in World Series - 0

 

If the playoffs really are a pure crapshoot, these teams have been INCREDIBLY snakebit.

 

Didn't realize that about the other 2 teams but have always thought Oakland has the recipe for a dynamite regular season and then for some reason they crap themselves come playoffs. They have had some very talented teams fold in the playoffs, so I dunno..... Maybe secretly they have been cursed lol.

[Kimmi]

Here's something that fascinates me:

 

Over the last 20 years, 3 teams, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Oakland, have made the postseason, including Wild Card games, a combined total of 29 times.

 

Results:

 

Elimination in Wild Card Game - 5 (and no wins)

Elimination in LDS - 21

Elimination in LCS - 3

Appearances in World Series - 0

 

If the playoffs really are a pure crapshoot, these teams have been INCREDIBLY snakebit.

 

It's one of those anomolies, Bell. There are always going to be outliers in any data sets.

[TylerD]

It's one of those anomolies, Bell. There are always going to be outliers in any data sets.

 

Maybe it's just a me thing, I don't really have the statistics to back it up..... I was completely stunned in the NFL when the Giants upset the Pats in 07, I was stunned last year when the Blue Jackets swept the Lightning. I just don't get that with MLB for some reason. I just always figure anyone can beat anyone. It's still an upset for sure, but if Oakland made it and beat the Yanks this year I wouldn't have been nearly as surprised as lets say.... Raiders making the playoffs this year and beating the Pats in the division round.

[Bellhorn04]

It's one of those anomolies, Bell. There are always going to be outliers in any data sets.

 

It's kind of a monster outlier in this size data set.

 

What's especially incredible is the futility of those teams in the LDS round. 3 wins and 21 losses.

[Kimmi]

Maybe it's just a me thing, I don't really have the statistics to back it up..... I was completely stunned in the NFL when the Giants upset the Pats in 07, I was stunned last year when the Blue Jackets swept the Lightning. I just don't get that with MLB for some reason. I just always figure anyone can beat anyone. It's still an upset for sure, but if Oakland made it and beat the Yanks this year I wouldn't have been nearly as surprised as lets say.... Raiders making the playoffs this year and beating the Pats in the division round.

 

I don't follow the other sports that closely, but I tend to agree with what you're saying. It seems to me that in the other sports, the favored or best teams tend to win most of the time. I might be wrong about that. But I do believe that baseball is a lot more random than other sports.

[Kimmi]

It's kind of a monster outlier in this size data set.

 

What's especially incredible is the futility of those teams in the LDS round. 3 wins and 21 losses.

 

It's unusual, that's for sure. The interesting thing is that in some of those years, the 3 teams mentioned were one of the top teams in baseball in terms of wins, in other years, they were among the bottom of the playoff teams in terms of wins. So, it's not like they have lost so much because they were the weakest team in the playoffs every year.

 

Do those 3 teams have some kind of organizational philosophy that keeps them from winning in the postseason? I suppose it's possible, but if there is something, it hasn't been discovered yet. It's far more likely that it's just one of those fluky things.

[moonslav59]

I don't follow the other sports that closely, but I tend to agree with what you're saying. It seems to me that in the other sports, the favored or best teams tend to win most of the time. I might be wrong about that. But I do believe that baseball is a lot more random than other sports.

 

It certainly is, and that is one reason they play 162 games to determine who makes the playoffs.

 

No doubt, luck, momentum and other factors play into who advances and wins it all, but the better team does win more often than not.

 

We can argue about how much more, but I find it hard to believe anyone thinks it's totally random- that it is a "complete crap shoot."

 

I answered "To a limited degree-but generally not," but "It's half true" seems reasonable, too.

 

In football, the best team wins more often than baseball, but the one and done playoff format makes it so the best teams don't win all the time.

 

Basketball and Hockey play series like baseball, and I think the better teams win more often in those sports than baseball.

 

In my earlier post, I used W-L records to show who were the best teams and who were not, and I realize that is not always a true measure for ranking the contenders. Take the Nats, they were the best second half team but not a top 2 NL team by record this season.

 

There seems to be very few total surprise winners of the World Series, where a team did not finish in the top 2-3 of the league in W-L and did not play very well at the end of the season. No big trades made them better than their records indicated, yet they went on to win it all.

 

If it was "mostly" a crap shoot, one would expect it to happen fairly often. Since 2000, I only see the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals as the only eye-opening WS winner. They won just 83 games, that year.

 

The 2014 Giants were a bit surprising, but they had won in 2012.

 

People point to the Royals win as a fluke, and the fact that they had crappy SP'ing, made it seem like a long shot, but they had the best record in the AL that year (2nd best in MLB).