Are the playoffs really a crapshoot?

[TylerD]

There is no stat in the regular season that correlates to postseason wins. Not regular season wins, not best ERA, not highest team OPS, not best run differential, not best WAR, not best September record, not most experience, not best bullpen, not anything. That, to me, is the very definition of the postseason being a crapshoot. You cannot predict who is going to win with any degree of reliability.

 

Exactly Kimmi! I feel like our points have been beaten to death.

 

And this isn't to say it's always been like this..... Hell the Pats only recently started going to the Super Bowl nearly every year. Back in 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 2010 it was a bit of a crapshoot as well. When Peyton was in the league it was nearly a flip of a coin who would go to the Super Bowl regardless who had the better record. Since Peyton retired though it's pretty much a 100 percent chance the Pats will go to the Super Bowl lmao. NFC is a bit of a crapshoot though. Tons of competition over there.

Saints

Packers

49ers

Seahawks

Rams

Vikings

Anyway this is way off topic.

[Bellhorn04]

The Astros have won most of their series by a 1-game margin. The swept the Guardians in the 2018 ALDS, only to lose to the Red Sox by a 1-4 margin. So, that year in the playoffs, they were .500.

 

In 2017, they beat the Sox 3 games to 1, but it took 7 games to win both the ALCS and WS.

 

So far this year, it took them 5 games to beat the Rays, and it might take 7 games to beat the Braves, or they might even lose.

 

I wouldn't consider that dominant. In most cases, I think the series could have gone either way.

 

But if they win this World Series that will be 2 championships and 1 ALCS appearance.

 

That clearly makes them the dominant team of the 3 years, results-wise, regardless of the closeness of the series.

[TylerD]

But if they win this World Series that will be 2 championships and 1 ALCS appearance.

 

That clearly makes them the dominant team of the 3 years, results-wise, regardless of the closeness of the series.

 

Again.... We are talking playoffs not just the World Series in general. This year there was a ton of upsets.... Cardinals beating the Braves, and Nationals beating the Dodgers. Huge upsets. There will be some on here that will tell you they saw it coming and they weren't upsets, but those people are lying I think one person said the Nats would win.... Can't remember who the hell that was lol.

[Bellhorn04]

Again.... We are talking playoffs not just the World Series in general. This year there was a ton of upsets.... Cardinals beating the Braves, and Nationals beating the Dodgers. Huge upsets. There will be some on here that will tell you they saw it coming and they weren't upsets, but those people are lying I think one person said the Nats would win.... Can't remember who the hell that was lol.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own take, but to me the bottom line is whether the team that wins it all is one you would have called a longshot going into the playoffs.

 

Sure, the Cards knocked off the Braves, but they promptly got stomped the next round.

 

This is about who can win 3 series in a row.

[TylerD]

Everyone is entitled to their own take, but to me the bottom line is whether the team that wins it all is one you would have called a longshot going into the playoffs.

 

Sure, the Cards knocked off the Braves, but they promptly got stomped the next round.

 

This is about who can win 3 series in a row.

 

Fair enough. Well I still think MLB is a bigger crapshoot than NHL and NFL and NBA

[redsoxrules]

Again.... We are talking playoffs not just the World Series in general. This year there was a ton of upsets.... Cardinals beating the Braves, and Nationals beating the Dodgers. Huge upsets. There will be some on here that will tell you they saw it coming and they weren't upsets, but those people are lying I think one person said the Nats would win.... Can't remember who the hell that was lol.

 

See, that's where I don't see it's an upset as they followed up the Dodgers win by stomping the cards and now has Houston in a 7th game. They are clearly a great team and again, their record since July speaks for itself. They just had a slow start to the year

[redsoxrules]

A lot of times on these so called upset, the team goes on to win it all or close to it. Yes there is some times where they promptly lose the next round but doesn't happen a lot. So I mean maybe 25 percent of time it's a crapshoot if even that.

[notin]

A lot of times on these so called upset, the team goes on to win it all or close to it. Yes there is some times where they promptly lose the next round but doesn't happen a lot. So I mean maybe 25 percent of time it's a crapshoot if even that.

 

If the Nats win tonight, after getting into the NLDS with the one game Wild Card, it does lend some credence to the "crapshoot" theory. Although they really were the best team in the NL after a horrific start...

[Bellhorn04]

If the Nats win tonight, after getting into the NLDS with the one game Wild Card, it does lend some credence to the "crapshoot" theory. Although they really were the best team in the NL after a horrific start...

 

Exactly, so it lends no credence whatsoever.

[TylerD]

See, that's where I don't see it's an upset as they followed up the Dodgers win by stomping the cards and now has Houston in a 7th game. They are clearly a great team and again, their record since July speaks for itself. They just had a slow start to the year

 

Guess same could be said about the giants in 07. They started 0-2 but then went on to win 13 of their next 17 games.

 

Colts started 1-5 last year and then went on to win 10 of their next 11 games yet it would have still been a huge upset if they beat the chiefs in the playoffs.

 

I get what you are saying, Nats got red hot after that slow start but at the end of the day a 93 win team beat a team with 106 wins who went to back to back World Series. In my eyes that’s still a big upset.

[TylerD]

Exactly, so it lends no credence whatsoever.

 

Lol, yes it does.... I made this point with Moon earlier..... It's utterly ridiculous that now we are building a case of "Well they got hot at this period, they had an easier schedule, bla bla bla" That is only for the true die hards of baseball to know. Hell I wouldn't even know who got hot at what period and who had the tougher schedule. End of the day most people look at the record and not when a team got hot or not hot especially in baseball because there is 160 plus games. NFL it's a bit easier because there is only 16 games. So if a team starts 0-5 but then wins 11 straight most people know.... However in baseball if a team gets hot after the first 80 games it's a bit more difficult to track.

 

"Not a true upset, this team was red hot at this point in this season"

"This team had a weak schedule"

"This team had a much tougher schedule, finished with 10 less wins but because of their tough schedule they are just as good"

 

Get outta here with that s***, I won't even touch those stats. And personally I think that is just a cop out way of getting a point across. A simple stat you can go by is the Dodgers won the regular season series 4 games to 3 and out scored the Nats 31 to 27.

 

Funny, people are acting like they saw the Nats going on to win it all at the beginning of the playoffs. I think I saw one person say the Nats were dangerous and could win it all.

Edited October 30, 2019 by TylerD

[Bellhorn04]

Lol, yes it does.... I made this point with Moon earlier..... It's utterly ridiculous that now we are building a case of "Well they got hot at this period, they had an easier schedule, bla bla bla" That is only for the true die hards of baseball to know. Hell I wouldn't even know who got hot at what period and who had the tougher schedule. End of the day most people look at the record and not when a team got hot or not hot especially in baseball because there is 160 plus games. NFL it's a bit easier because there is only 16 games. So if a team starts 0-5 but then wins 11 straight most people know.... However in baseball if a team gets hot after the first 80 games it's a bit more difficult to track.

 

"Not a true upset, this team was red hot at this point in this season"

"This team had a weak schedule"

"This team had a much tougher schedule, finished with 10 less wins but because of their tough schedule they are just as good"

 

Get outta here with that s***, I won't even touch those stats. And personally I think that is just a cop out way of getting a point across. A simple stat you can go by is the Dodgers won the regular season series 4 games to 3 and out scored the Nats 31 to 27.

 

Funny, people are acting like they saw the Nats going on to win it all at the beginning of the playoffs. I think I saw one person say the Nats were dangerous and could win it all.

 

Tyler, IMHO the beauty about this question is that there are different ways to look at it and no clear answers.

[moonslav59]

Tyler, IMHO the beauty about this question is that there are different ways to look at it and no clear answers.

 

The answer looks clear, to me.

 

LOL

[TylerD]

Tyler, IMHO the beauty about this question is that there are different ways to look at it and no clear answers.

 

Very true! Different opinions about baseball and playoffs and teams is what makes this sport great. If everyone agreed with each other it would make it boring.

[moonslav59]

Very true! Different opinions about baseball and playoffs and teams is what makes this sport great. If everyone agreed with each other it would make it boring.

 

I disagree!

 

 

[TylerD]

The answer looks clear, to me.

 

LOL

 

Baseball to me is like the NFC playoffs in the NFL..... crapshoot..... AFC it's pretty a much given that the Patriots will go to the Super Bowl, when Peyton was still playing then it was a toss up between Colts/Broncos or Patriots.

 

NFC especially this year you have Saints, Packers, 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, Vikings who all could be a threat and go to the Super Bowl. I would say Dallas..... but they choke far too often lol (sorry any Dallas fans out there)

[TylerD]

I disagree!

 

 

 

Lol see, beautiful!

[moonslav59]

Baseball to me is like the NFC playoffs in the NFL..... crapshoot..... AFC it's pretty a much given that the Patriots will go to the Super Bowl, when Peyton was still playing then it was a toss up between Colts/Broncos or Patriots.

 

NFC especially this year you have Saints, Packers, 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, Vikings who all could be a threat and go to the Super Bowl. I would say Dallas..... but they choke far too often lol (sorry any Dallas fans out there)

 

To me, the chance of the Astros, Yanks, Dodgers & Braves making the WS were way higher than the other 6 teams combined. One could argue the Nats were a top 4 team going into the playoffs based on their second half record and strong rotation.

 

The chance of an underdog winning 3 series vs better teams is very remote in MLB.

 

In the NFL, it's a one game, single elimination playoff system, so slight underdogs win much more often, and moderate underdogs win more than baseball. Still, in football, the best team wins very often. It's designed that way. That's why the season only has to be one-tenth of the MLB season to weed out the best from the worst.

[a700hitter]

To me, the chance of the Astros, Yanks, Dodgers & Braves making the WS were way higher than the other 6 teams combined. One could argue the Nats were a top 4 team going into the playoffs based on their second half record and strong rotation.

 

The chance of an underdog winning 3 series vs better teams is very remote in MLB.

 

In the NFL, it's a one game, single elimination playoff system, so slight underdogs win much more often, and moderate underdogs win more than baseball. Still, in football, the best team wins very often. It's designed that way. That's why the season only has to be one-tenth of the MLB season to weed out the best from the worst.

I agree. While an inferior team can win the Championship, it is rare. The cream usually rises to the top. In the NFL, it is more likely that an inferior team can win because of the single game format.

[moonslav59]

I agree. While an inferior team can win the Championship, it is rare. The cream usually rises to the top. In the NFL, it is more likely that an inferior team can win because of the single game format.

 

In MLB, if you are an underdog WC team, you have to win 12 games. A division winner needs 11. That's not easy, unless you are just a slight underdog in each series.

[TylerD]

To me, the chance of the Astros, Yanks, Dodgers & Braves making the WS were way higher than the other 6 teams combined. One could argue the Nats were a top 4 team going into the playoffs based on their second half record and strong rotation.

 

The chance of an underdog winning 3 series vs better teams is very remote in MLB.

 

In the NFL, it's a one game, single elimination playoff system, so slight underdogs win much more often, and moderate underdogs win more than baseball. Still, in football, the best team wins very often. It's designed that way. That's why the season only has to be one-tenth of the MLB season to weed out the best from the worst.

 

I still thought it was a crapshoot between the Dodgers, Nats and Braves. I never really thought the Cards had any chance but surprisingly they beat out the Braves. Never would have saw that coming. I'm not saying the Top dog doesn't usually go to the World Series because it looks that way.... But MLB playoffs in general is just hard to predict. Maybe I have better luck with the NFL, but I usually always predict the playoffs right. Even two evenly matched teams. I predicted Colts beating Texans last year, but lost to the Chiefs and Chiefs would play Pats. NFC I said the Rams would go to the Super Bowl and it would come down to them vs Saints. No way I would have predicted it coming down to the Cards and Nats. Yankees and Astros however I predicted. But it was definitely a crapshoot of who would win that series. No way I would have put money on Houston to run away with that series or Yankees to run away with it. Two evenly matched teams.

 

In my opinion by the end of the NFL season I usually am right with who will play in the conf final and go to the Super Bowl unless it's 2 very very evenly matched teams. For example Pats vs Colts in 2006/2007 Conf final. Vikes/Saints 2009 etc, Patriots/Broncos 2015 etc.

[TylerD]

In MLB, if you are an underdog WC team, you have to win 12 games. A division winner needs 11. That's not easy, unless you are just a slight underdog in each series.

 

Sometimes those teams ride that high all the way through though. I know the NFL is different but the lone super Bowl Peyton won for the Colts was when they were a Wild Card team. Baseball is different as it's a lot more games, but it really just depends who is hot at the right time. I'm not saying it's always an under dog going to the World Series, but under dog teams win in the playoffs ALL the time in MLB. A page or so ago I posted quite a few times.

[moonslav59]

Sometimes those teams ride that high all the way through though. I know the NFL is different but the lone super Bowl Peyton won for the Colts was when they were a Wild Card team. Baseball is different as it's a lot more games, but it really just depends who is hot at the right time. I'm not saying it's always an under dog going to the World Series, but under dog teams win in the playoffs ALL the time in MLB. A page or so ago I posted quite a few times.

 

They do win quite a few times, but in total, it's way less than 50% of the time, especially if they are big underdogs.

 

The argument was about winning it all, and that means an underdog has to win 3 series against better teams.

 

How many examples are there for that?

 

I mentioned the 2006 Cards as maybe the only one in the past 2 decades. Do you think I missed anyone?

 

Is 1 out of 20 a crap shoot?

[TylerD]

They do win quite a few times, but in total, it's way less than 50% of the time, especially if they are big underdogs.

 

The argument was about winning it all, and that means an underdog has to win 3 series against better teams.

 

How many examples are there for that?

 

I mentioned the 2006 Cards as maybe the only one in the past 2 decades. Do you think I missed anyone?

 

Is 1 out of 20 a crap shoot?

Well the title is are playoffs a crapshoot? Not is it a crapshoot who goes to the World Series... Also I think both Cards World Series were huge upsets, and Marlins beating Yankees in 03. 3 times in 16 years big under dogs have won it all, yes that isn't that much but under dogs win in the playoffs a lot more in MLB than any other sport. Also Giants winning it all in 2014 with a record of 88-74 was a good under dog story. They had the worst record in the playoffs that year. 2012 World Series had Detroit in who I believe also had the worst record in that playoffs that year. They didn't win it all but they still made it. That is now 5 times in 16 years. Pretty much every 3'rd year an Under Dog makes it. Lately however it's been pretty accurate with the top team winning it all.

 

Meh going in circles, tired of debating lol.

Edited October 30, 2019 by TylerD

[moonslav59]

Well the title is are playoffs a crapshoot? Not is it a crapshoot who goes to the World Series... Also I think both Cards World Series were huge upsets, and Marlins beating Yankees in 03. 3 times in 16 years big under dogs have won it all, yes that isn't that much but under dogs win in the playoffs a lot more in MLB than any other sport. Also Giants winning it all in 2014 with a record of 88-74 was a good under dog story. They had the worst record in the playoffs that year. 2012 World Series had Detroit in who I believe also had the worst record in that playoffs that year. They didn't win it all but they still made it. That is now 5 times in 16 years. Pretty much every 3'rd year an Under Dog makes it. Lately however it's been pretty accurate with the top team winning it all.

 

Meh going in circles, tired of debating lol.

 

That Marlin team was damn good. Beckett was their #5 starter.

 

Derek Lee and Mike Lowell both had 30+ Hrs and they also had Alex Gonzalez at SS (my fave), IRod behind the plate, Pierre in CF (strong D up the middle) plus Miggy, EE, Luis Castillo and others.

 

They won 91 games (3rd best in NL), but they were 49-45 in the first half and were a different team the second half (42-25). It wasn't a surprise they made the WS. I'll admit nobody gave them much of a chance to beat NY, who went 44-25 in their second half.

They Giants won in 2014, but the NL had nobody with more than 96 wins.

 

I might say 2 upsets, but even 3 in 16 years is way less than 8 in 16, which would be the expected number, if winning the WS was 100% a crap shoot.

[TylerD]

That Marlin team was damn good. Beckett was their #5 starter.

 

Derek Lee and Mike Lowell both had 30+ Hrs and they also had Alex Gonzalez at SS (my fave), IRod behind the plate, Pierre in CF (strong D up the middle) plus Miggy, EE, Luis Castillo and others.

 

They won 91 games (3rd best in NL), but they were 49-45 in the first half and were a different team the second half (42-25). It wasn't a surprise they made the WS. I'll admit nobody gave them much of a chance to beat NY, who went 44-25 in their second half.

They Giants won in 2014, but the NL had nobody with more than 96 wins.

 

I might say 2 upsets, but even 3 in 16 years is way less than 8 in 16, which would be the expected number, if winning the WS was 100% a crap shoot.

 

Shhhh, no more debating now Moon. Now we hug and agree to disagree. No more stats. It's giving me a head ache lol.

[moonslav59]

Shhhh, no more debating now Moon. Now we hug and agree to disagree. No more stats. It's giving me a head ache lol.

 

Just agree with me, and we can stop!

 

(LOL)

 

[TylerD]

Just agree with me, and we can stop!

 

(LOL)

 

 

Moon, I would love to agree with you. You're an intelligent man who knows his stuff...... But I just can't do it this time. You're wrong.

 

You make a valid case for the Marlins ( I barely remember that year) However I counter that with..... Most people aren't like you and can dive into their roster and stats and see through the s*** record... Most just see the record and assume they aren't super great like me. I do the same thing with the NFL though as I have been watching it for years and I swear I was one of the only people on the face of the Earth that thought the Giants could knock the Pats off in 07. Giants were red hot down the stretch, had previously gave the Pats one of their toughest games of the regular season. Also the Giants went into the 13-3 Dallas Cowboys stadium and beat them, then went on the road to the 13-3 Packers and beat them. The giants ended up winning in one of the biggest underdog stories of all time. IN MY OPINION I honestly don't think they were that big of an underdog because they had the top defense in the playoffs and one of the best run attacks in the NFL. They were a very loaded team and arguably had the best wide receiver at the time in Plaxico Burris (infact by the end of season the best defense) And Eli was absolutely incredible the second half of the season.I thought the Giants had the best chance to beat the Pats (better chance than the 11-5 Steelers, 13-3 Colts, 13-3 Packers, 13-3 Cowboys)

 

And yet.... It's still a massive underdog story being that they finished 10-6 and were a Wild Card team facing the 18-0 mighty Patriots. Nobody dives in and actually looks at how good the Giants were that season.

 

Same with your argument about the Marlins. They were still an under dog story regardless of the spin people put on. I agree with you that they obviously had an incredibly talented team that year, but I don't think anyone was expecting a World Series from them, and then even further to beat the Yankees. Same with the 06 Cards and the 2011 Cards and the 2010 Rangers who finished with 90 wins. Yankees, Rays, Twins all finished better record. That's 4 teams making the World Series in 16 years. Every 4 years in my opinion it seems an under dog goes to the World Series. I guess it isn't 50/50 which if that is what a crapshoot means then I agree with you..... However it seems to happen more than any other sport.... To the point I would never want to put money on a team for sure going to the World Series.

 

NFL you could put money on the Pats, Saints, Packers and good chance you will be a rich man.

[moonslav59]

Moon, I would love to agree with you. You're an intelligent man who knows his stuff...... But I just can't do it this time. You're wrong.

 

You make a valid case for the Marlins ( I barely remember that year) However I counter that with..... Most people aren't like you and can dive into their roster and stats and see through the s*** record... Most just see the record and assume they aren't super great like me. I do the same thing with the NFL though as I have been watching it for years and I swear I was one of the only people on the face of the Earth that thought the Giants could knock the Pats off in 07. Giants were red hot down the stretch, had previously gave the Pats one of their toughest games of the regular season. Also the Giants went into the 13-3 Dallas Cowboys stadium and beat them, then went on the road to the 13-3 Packers and beat them. The giants ended up winning in one of the biggest underdog stories of all time. IN MY OPINION I honestly don't think they were that big of an underdog because they had the top defense in the playoffs and one of the best run attacks in the NFL. They were a very loaded team and arguably had the best wide receiver at the time in Plaxico Burris (infact by the end of season the best defense) And Eli was absolutely incredible the second half of the season.I thought the Giants had the best chance to beat the Pats (better chance than the 11-5 Steelers, 13-3 Colts, 13-3 Packers, 13-3 Cowboys)

 

And yet.... It's still a massive underdog story being that they finished 10-6 and were a Wild Card team facing the 18-0 mighty Patriots. Nobody dives in and actually looks at how good the Giants were that season.

 

Same with your argument about the Marlins. They were still an under dog story regardless of the spin people put on. I agree with you that they obviously had an incredibly talented team that year, but I don't think anyone was expecting a World Series from them, and then even further to beat the Yankees. Same with the 06 Cards and the 2011 Cards and the 2010 Rangers who finished with 90 wins. Yankees, Rays, Twins all finished better record. That's 4 teams making the World Series in 16 years. Every 4 years in my opinion it seems an under dog goes to the World Series. I guess it isn't 50/50 which if that is what a crapshoot means then I agree with you..... However it seems to happen more than any other sport.... To the point I would never want to put money on a team for sure going to the World Series.

 

NFL you could put money on the Pats, Saints, Packers and good chance you will be a rich man.

 

Okay, 3 out of 16.

 

That's not a crap shoot.

 

8 out of 16 is.

 

This isn't stats or metrics. The better half of the teams win it all 75% of the time. The lower half wins it all 25% of the time.

 

(3 out of 16 is actually about 19%, so yeah, I'm using numbers. I can't help myself.)

 

 

 

[TylerD]

Okay, 3 out of 16.

 

That's not a crap shoot.

 

8 out of 16 is.

 

This isn't stats or metrics. The better half of the teams win it all 75% of the time. The lower half wins it all 25% of the time.

 

(3 out of 16 is actually about 19%, so yeah, I'm using numbers. I can't help myself.)

 

 

 

 

5 out of 16. My original point was never who wins it all.... Was actually playoffs in general, but now teams that go to the World Series. 5 out of 16 (32% roughly) is about every 4 years an under dog goes to the World Series. Too risky for me to put money on it that's for sure. That is a crapshoot, or crapshoot enough that I don't feel confident picking the two teams who will meet at the World Series. Bigger crapshoot than the other major sports that's for sure.

 

So is 32% a crapshoot? To me it is..... Yes the odds are still better if you go with the team with the best record but 32% is still a gamble.

 

Edit: By the way where I get my 5

 

03 Marlins

05 Astros (finished with 89 wins, Cards and Braves finished with better records)

06 Cardinals

2011 Cardinals

2012 Detroit Tigers

 

You could even put the Texas Rangers in there from 2010. The Rays, Yankees and Twins all had better records than the Rangers.

 

That brings up to 6 teams in 16 years. 37%

Edited October 30, 2019 by TylerD