Are the playoffs really a crapshoot?

[Kimmi]

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.

 

They might be a dominant team over the last 3 years, but that is hardly the same thing as saying that the playoffs aren't a crapshoot.

[moonslav59]

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.

 

32% is closer to a crap shoot (50%) than 0%, but it's much worse than flipping a coin.

 

My point has been about winning it all. I think this all started when Kimmi said that once a team makes the playoffs, it's a crap shoot on who will win it all. The idea was that you just needed to make the playoffs to have an equal chance at winning it all. making yourself into a super team did not add to your chances once you made the playoffs.

 

Even one series at a time, if it was a crap shoot, I'd expect the worse 4 teams vs the best 4 teams might win 45-55% of the time, if it was a 100% crap shoot (like one poster voted).

 

What does "mostly" mean? 32%? 45%? I guess there's room for interpretation.

 

BTW, I don't disagree with your last post, so maybe stopping now would be good.

[TylerD]

32% is closer to a crap shoot (50%) than 0%, but it's much worse than flipping a coin.

 

My point has been about winning it all. I think this all started when Kimmi said that once a team makes the playoffs, it's a crap shoot on who will win it all. The idea was that you just needed to make the playoffs to have an equal chance at winning it all. making yourself into a super team did not add to your chances once you made the playoffs.

 

Even one series at a time, if it was a crap shoot, I'd expect the worse 4 teams vs the best 4 teams might win 45-55% of the time, if it was a 100% crap shoot (like one poster voted).

 

What does "mostly" mean? 32%? 45%? I guess there's room for interpretation.

 

BTW, I don't disagree with your last post, so maybe stopping now would be good.

 

Alright lol I'll end here... You and Kimmi can debate for a bit lmao.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

In the 24 years of the wildcard era, the team with the best record has won the WS 6 times, 25%. That sounds like the team with the best record has an edge, until you note that the wildcard team has also won the WS 6 times.

 

In the same time frame, the team with the best record has been eliminated in the LDS 11 times, when they are typically playing against the playoff teams with the worst record..

[TylerD]

32% is closer to a crap shoot (50%) than 0%, but it's much worse than flipping a coin.

 

My point has been about winning it all. I think this all started when Kimmi said that once a team makes the playoffs, it's a crap shoot on who will win it all. The idea was that you just needed to make the playoffs to have an equal chance at winning it all. making yourself into a super team did not add to your chances once you made the playoffs.

 

Even one series at a time, if it was a crap shoot, I'd expect the worse 4 teams vs the best 4 teams might win 45-55% of the time, if it was a 100% crap shoot (like one poster voted).

 

What does "mostly" mean? 32%? 45%? I guess there's room for interpretation.

 

BTW, I don't disagree with your last post, so maybe stopping now would be good.

 

By the way that one poster was me lol. Playoffs a crapshoot? You bet your ass

 

I guess another point. Super teams in MLB for some reason aren’t the same as NBA. NBA a super team like the Heat will go the finals, Golden State with Curry and Durant will go. MLB the chances are still good but not near

The other sports. Baseball is just different for whatever reason in my opinion.

[Kimmi]

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

 

It is. In data compiled in 2016, the team with the best record in MLB won the WS 19% of the time. In the NHL and NFL, the team with the best record won the championship 31% of the time. In the NBA, it's a whopping 48%.

[Kimmi]

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

 

But it doesn't really matter which way you look at it. Nothing correlates to postseason wins.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

And yet, the wildcard team has won just as many WS as the team with the best record.

[Kimmi]

Alright lol I'll end here... You and Kimmi can debate for a bit lmao.

 

LOL I'm out too Tyler.

[Bellhorn04]

And yet, the wildcard team has won just as many WS as the team with the best record.

 

But under the old wildcard system, the wildcard team could have a better record than one or two of the division winners.

[TylerD]

It is. In data compiled in 2016, the team with the best record in MLB won the WS 19% of the time. In the NHL and NFL, the team with the best record won the championship 31% of the time. In the NBA, it's a whopping 48%.

 

You go Kimmi!!!!!!!!

[moonslav59]

By the way that one poster was me lol. Playoffs a crapshoot? You bet your ass

 

I guess another point. Super teams in MLB for some reason aren’t the same as NBA. NBA a super team like the Heat will go the finals, Golden State with Curry and Durant will go. MLB the chances are still good but not near

The other sports. Baseball is just different for whatever reason in my opinion.

 

I can agree with this, too, except the third sentence.

[moonslav59]

But under the old wildcard system, the wildcard team could have a better record than one or two of the division winners.

 

Still can. This year, the Nats were a WC and had a better record than the Cards.

[TylerD]

Still can. This year, the Nats were a WC and had a better record than the Cards.

 

Cards always make playoffs with a s*** record somehow lol and then do well except 2013. They were really good. But we still beat them.

[moonslav59]

It is. In data compiled in 2016, the team with the best record in MLB won the WS 19% of the time. In the NHL and NFL, the team with the best record won the championship 31% of the time. In the NBA, it's a whopping 48%.

 

I'm not sure, if those numbers include the pre-1994 seasons. I'm going by recent years. The playoffs changed in 1995, and team budget disparities ballooned almsot exponentially in the early to mid 2000's. When budgets were more bunched, it was likely more random.

 

Opening Day Team payrolls:

 

2000: NYY 93K, LAD 88K, ATL 85K, BAL 81K

#15 58K

#30 17K

 

2001: NYY 110K, BOS 110K, LAD 109K, NYM 93K

#15 $63K

#30 $24K

 

2002: NYY 126K, BOS 108K, TX 105K, AZ 103

#15 61K

#30 34K

 

2003:NYY 153K, NYM 117, ATL 106, LAD 106

#15 71K

#30 20K

 

2004: NYY 183, BOS 125, LAA 101, 101

#15 65K

#30 28K

 

2005: NYY 206, BOS 121, NYM 105, PHI 95

#15 69K

#30 30K

 

...

2019: BOS 205, CUBS 205, NYY 205, SFG 178

#15 125K

#30 53K

 

Where we can pick the starting point matters, but let's say in 2003:

(League Ranking by Wins- 1 to 4 per league)

2003: FLA 3> NYY 1

2004: BOS 2> STL 1

2005: CWS 1> HOU 3

2006: STL 4> DET 3 (2 wins from #1)

2007: BOS 1> COL 1

2008: PHI 2> TBR 2

2009: NYY 1> PHI 2

2010: SFG 2> TX 4

2011: STL 4> TX 2

Play-In Game Starts (12 teams make POs, so 1-6 in each league):

2012: SFG 3> DET 6

2013: BOS 1> STL 1

2014: SFG 4> KC 4

2015: KC 1> NYM 6

2016: Cubs 1> CLE 2

2017: HOU 1> LAD 1

2018: BOS 1>LAD 3

2019: HOU 1 vs WAS 3

 

5 of the last 17 World Series Champs were NOT top 2 in their league. If it were random, we'd expect 8-9.

 

13 out of 34 League Champions were NOT top 2 in their league. One would expect 16-18, if it were random.

 

World Series Champs Rankings in their league - last 17 years:

1st: 9 wins if HOU wins, 8 if not

2nd: 3 wins

3rd: 2 wins if HOU wins, 3 if not

4th: 3 wins

 

1st: 8-9

All Others combined : 8-9

 

1st or 2nd: 11-12

All Others: 5-6

 

The 4 years from 2011 to 2014 looked random. The rest: not even close.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by moonslav59

[TylerD]

I'm not sure, if those numbers include the pre-1994 seasons. I'm going by recent years. The playoffs changed in 1995, and team budget disparities ballooned almsot exponentially in the early to mid 2000's. When budgets were more bunched, it was likely more random.

 

Opening Day Team payrolls:

 

2000: NYY 93K, LAD 88K, ATL 85K, BAL 81K

#15 58K

#30 17K

 

2001: NYY 110K, BOS 110K, LAD 109K, NYM 93K

#15 $63K

#30 $24K

 

2002: NYY 126K, BOS 108K, TX 105K, AZ 103

#15 61K

#30 34K

 

2003:NYY 153K, NYM 117, ATL 106, LAD 106

#15 71K

#30 20K

 

2004: NYY 183, BOS 125, LAA 101, 101

#15 65K

#30 28K

 

2005: NYY 206, BOS 121, NYM 105, PHI 95

#15 69K

#30 30K

 

...

2019: BOS 205, CUBS 205, NYY 205, SFG 178

#15 125K

#30 53K

 

Where we can pick the starting point matters, but let's say in 2003:

(League Ranking by Wins- 1 to 4 per league)

2003: FLA 3> NYY 1

2004: BOS 2> STL 1

2005: CWS 1> HOU 3

2006: STL 4> DET 3 (2 wins from #1)

2007: BOS 1> COL 1

2008: PHI 2> TBR 2

2009: NYY 1> PHI 2

2010: SFG 2> TX 4

2011: STL 4> TX 2

Play-In Game Starts (12 teams make POs, so 1-6 in each league):

2012: SFG 3> DET 6

2013: BOS 1> STL 1

2014: SFG 4> KC 4

2015: KC 1> NYM 6

2016: Cubs 1> CLE 2

2017: HOU 1> LAD 1

2018: BOS 1>LAD 3

2019: HOU 1 vs WAS 3

 

5 of the last 17 World Series Champs were NOT top 2 in their league. If it were random, we'd expect 8-9.

 

13 out of 34 League Champions were NOT top 2 in their league. One would expect 16-18, if it were random.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moon I thought I said stop with the stats and numbers. I get head aches you know lol

[moonslav59]

Cards always make playoffs with a s*** record somehow lol and then do well except 2013. They were really good. But we still beat them.

 

The Cards and Giants are the only teams that break the mold (2 each), unless you count the 2003 Marlins (once).

[moonslav59]

Moon I thought I said stop with the stats and numbers. I get head aches you know lol

 

I was going to, but you had to try and get the last word.

 

I offered to stop a few posts back, but NOOooooooo!

 

 

[moonslav59]

Cards always make playoffs with a s*** record somehow lol and then do well except 2013. They were really good. But we still beat them.

 

Can we agree on one thing?

 

The only thing good about the Cards, beside being our bitches the last 15 years, is their cool uniforms.

[Bellhorn04]

And yet, the wildcard team has won just as many WS as the team with the best record.

 

The real question should be this:

 

Has the team with the worst record won as many as the team with the best record?

[Slasher9]

IMO until there is a 100% balanced schedule + DH for every game played + robot umps; comparing team records is meaningless.

[moonslav59]

The real question should be this:

 

Has the team with the worst record won as many as the team with the best record?

 

That's how I see it, although going by just records has its flaws.

 

I expanded it to the 4 teams with the 2 best records in each league vs all the rest (4 teams or 6, if you count the play-in game loser). The score is 11 to 6 with the top teams winning almost 2 out of every 3 years.

 

World Series Champs Rankings in their league - last 17 years:

1st: 8 wins

2nd: 3 wins

3rd: 3 wins

4th: 3 wins

 

[moonslav59]

IMO until there is a 100% balanced schedule + DH for every game played + robot umps; comparing team records is meaningless.

 

Maybe not totally meaningless, but your point is well taken.

 

BTW, we will never see the day of a 100% balanced schedule in any major sport.

[Kimmi]

The real question should be this:

 

Has the team with the worst record won as many as the team with the best record?

 

I don't know how many times the team with the worst record has won the WS, and I'm too lazy to go through year by year to find out. I am sure that it's not as many times as the best team has won. The stat that correlates best with postseason wins is regular season wins, so the better teams do have a very slight advantage, with the emphasis being on 'very slight'. It's not enough of an advantage to be statistically significant.

 

I posted before that the best team in the playoffs each year has a winning % of 55.7% in the postseason, while the worst team has a winning % of 53.2%. In a 5 game series, that equates to the best team winning 2.785 games, on average, and the worst team winning 2.66 games. In a 7 game series, the split would be 3.899 to 3.724. If all series went the distance for a total of 19 games, the split would be 10.583 to 10.108. That's virtually a coin flip.

 

All that said, the bottom line for me is that there is no correlation between regular season anything and post season wins. That means that post season wins are very largely random. Until somebody can provide me with a statistical correlation to postseason wins, you are not going to convince me otherwise. And with all due respect to Moon, listing examples in support of your opinion is not showing a statistical correlation.

 

So, for the 3rd time, I am bowing out of this debate. Until, of course, you pull me back in with another question.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, I know this is sort of going 'down the rabbit hole', but I think it's also possible that regular season record isn't the best measure of which teams are the strongest going into the playoffs.

 

Some teams have lost guys to injury, some have had guys come back from injury, some have made key acquisitions at the trade deadline, some have played much better in the second half, et cetera.

 

So maybe the best measure would be the 'power rankings' or betting odds going into the playoffs, which presumably would account for these things.

[Kimmi]

Well, I know this is sort of going 'down the rabbit hole', but I think it's also possible that regular season record isn't the best measure of which teams are the strongest going into the playoffs.

 

Some teams have lost guys to injury, some have had guys come back from injury, some have made key acquisitions at the trade deadline, some have played much better in the second half, et cetera.

 

So maybe the best measure would be the 'power rankings' or betting odds going into the playoffs, which presumably would account for these things.

 

The stat geeks have diced this up pretty much every way imaginable, including by best second half performance, best run differential, best team WAR, and strongest September. Still, no correlation.

 

Five and seven game series are just way too small a sample to be significant.

 

Betting odds? That is something very different.

[moonslav59]

I don't know how many times the team with the worst record has won the WS, and I'm too lazy to go through year by year to find out. I am sure that it's not as many times as the best team has won. The stat that correlates best with postseason wins is regular season wins, so the better teams do have a very slight advantage, with the emphasis being on 'very slight'. It's not enough of an advantage to be statistically significant.

 

I posted before that the best team in the playoffs each year has a winning % of 55.7% in the postseason, while the worst team has a winning % of 53.2%. In a 5 game series, that equates to the best team winning 2.785 games, on average, and the worst team winning 2.66 games. In a 7 game series, the split would be 3.899 to 3.724. If all series went the distance for a total of 19 games, the split would be 10.583 to 10.108. That's virtually a coin flip.

 

All that said, the bottom line for me is that there is no correlation between regular season anything and post season wins. That means that post season wins are very largely random. Until somebody can provide me with a statistical correlation to postseason wins, you are not going to convince me otherwise. And with all due respect to Moon, listing examples in support of your opinion is not showing a statistical correlation.

 

So, for the 3rd time, I am bowing out of this debate. Until, of course, you pull me back in with another question.

 

If it were this close, the worst team would have won way more than they have.

 

Plus, the whole system has changed over the last few years. The playoffs have more teams and money can buy better teams.

 

I'd like to see a study since 2003, when team budget disparities widened greatly.

 

Even if the number is still over 55%, I don't call that a crapshoot, but it is closer than I expected.

[TylerD]

If it were this close, the worst team would have won way more than they have.

 

Plus, the whole system has changed over the last few years. The playoffs have more teams and money can buy better teams.

 

I'd like to see a study since 2003, when team budget disparities widened greatly.

 

Even if the number is still over 55%, I don't call that a crapshoot, but it is closer than I expected.

It’s a crapshoot Moon. Come to the dark side.

[moonslav59]

It’s a crapshoot Moon. Come to the dark side.

 

At least you admit it's there's no light shining on your position.

[Kimmi]

If it were this close, the worst team would have won way more than they have.

 

Plus, the whole system has changed over the last few years. The playoffs have more teams and money can buy better teams.

 

I'd like to see a study since 2003, when team budget disparities widened greatly.

 

Even if the number is still over 55%, I don't call that a crapshoot, but it is closer than I expected.

 

You don't think the difference between 55.7% and 53.2% is a crapshoot?

 

As far as a study since 2003, I don't think there would be that much difference. Several studies have been done since 1995 when the wildcards began. I can't see 8 years making any difference.

 

At any rate, we're going around in circles. We'll have to agree to disagree.