Are the playoffs really a crapshoot?

[notin]

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.

 

So what exactly is a crapshoot? Because a difference of 5 successful title runs over a full century sure seems like one to me...

[Bellhorn04]

So what exactly is a crapshoot? Because a difference of 5 successful title runs over a full century sure seems like one to me...

 

Personally, I'd rather have 5 more than 5 less.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's one of my little issues with the 'crapshoot' philosophy.

 

If you fully subscribe to the theory that every team that gets in has an equal chance:

 

1) Deadline deals like the acquisitions of Eovaldi, Pearce and Kinsler in 2018, or Peavy in 2013, were 'unnecessary', because we already had a playoff spot virtually clinched.

2) What's the point of a team that has clinched getting players a little rest at the end of the season to have them in better shape for the playoffs?

3) What's the point of a team that has clinched trying to get their pitching rotation properly lined up for the playoffs?

[TylerD]

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

 

Crapshoot! Just like it was a crapshoot if Ross and Rachel would last in their relationship at the end of friends because they broke up many times before.

[Bellhorn04]

Crapshoot! Just like it was a crapshoot if Ross and Rachel would last in their relationship at the end of friends because they broke up many times before.

 

That was no crapshoot. A guy like Ross would never give up on a woman who looked like that.

[TylerD]

That was no crapshoot. A guy like Ross would never give up on a woman who looked like that.

 

Lol!!!

[moonslav59]

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

 

1) I'm looking at more than just the #1 vs # 8 or #10 team.

2) I do not think those numbers are accurate over the last 15 years.

3) 55.7% is not a crap shoot- 50% is.

 

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.

 

The difference between 1995 and 2003 or 2004 is massive. Look at how the richer teams just exploded their spending while the lower and middle teams barely increased their spending.

 

The better teams are much better than the fringe teams over the last 15 years.

 

BTW, I did a study of the winners since 2003, and the numbers do not support your claims. It's on one of the more recent pages.

[moonslav59]

So what exactly is a crapshoot? Because a difference of 5 successful title runs over a full century sure seems like one to me...

 

To me, a crap shoot is like flipping a coin. Surely, better teams win more often than worse ones, even in 5 or 7 game series.

 

Yes, baseball is more random than other sports, but it is not a 50-50 crap shoot.

 

If it was, the worse half teams making the playoffs would win it all more often than 30% of the time.

[moonslav59]

One difficult thing to prove is determining who are the best 2, 3 or 4 teams and who are the worst.

 

With unbalanced schedules, in-season team roster changes and other factors influencing how good each team is when the reach day one of the playoffs, it's hard to prove anything.

 

If you go by just W-L records, staring in 2004, here are the league W-L rankings

 

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 (10 teams make POs, so #1-#5 in each league):

2012: SFG 3> DET 5

2013: BOS 1> STL 1

2014: SFG 4> KC 4

2015: KC 1> NYM 5 (2 wins from #4)

2016: Cubs 1> CLE 2

2017: HOU 1> LAD 1

2018: BOS 1>LAD 3

2019: WAS 3> HOU1

 

WS Record of teams ranked 1 or 2: 11-5

WS Record of teams ranked 3-5: 5-11

 

WS Wins & League Ranks of Teams Winning the WS:

8 by #1 teams

3 by #2 teams

2 by #3 teams

3 by #4 teams

0 by #5 teams

 

This is as plain as day no crap shoot!

 

WS Losses & Team Rankings

5 by #1 teams

4 by #2 teams

3 by #3 teams

2 by #4 teams

2 by #5 teams

 

This is also no crap shoot.

 

32 teams made the WS in the last 16 seasons- if it was totally random, one would expect each ranking to make the 25% of the time (8 times in 16 years/32 teams). I'm counting the 4 and 5 ranked teams as one, since just one makes the final 8 teams.

 

Total WS winners and Loser & League Rankings

13 by the #1 teams

7 by the #2 teams

5 by the # 3 teams

7 by the #4 & 5 teams combined

 

It looks somewhat random between the 2 through 4/5 rankings, but the number one ranked team in each league has won way more often than randomly suggested. 13 instead of 8 is hardly a crap shoot.

 

A number 1 teams makes the WS 81% of the time, instead of 25%.

 

A number 1 team wins the WS 50% of the time, instead of 25%.

 

I don't think I have the wrong notion of what the word "crapshoot" means, but no matter what you think it means, it can't mean this.

 

Maybe, before 2004, it was more of a crap shoot, but more and more MLB has become a league of 3-5 super teams, and the rest lag way behind in talent level. 8 teams make the playoffs (10 if you count the both WC teams in each league).

 

Those non super teams do not have anywhere near equal odds of winning the WS or making it there. It's not even close. Not even in our new world of "alternative facts" and realities.

[TylerD]

One difficult thing to prove is determining who are the best 2, 3 or 4 teams and who are the worst.

 

With unbalanced schedules, in-season team roster changes and other factors influencing how good each team is when the reach day one of the playoffs, it's hard to prove anything.

 

If you go by just W-L records, staring in 2004, here are the league W-L rankings

 

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 (10 teams make POs, so #1-#5 in each league):

2012: SFG 3> DET 5

2013: BOS 1> STL 1

2014: SFG 4> KC 4

2015: KC 1> NYM 5 (2 wins from #4)

2016: Cubs 1> CLE 2

2017: HOU 1> LAD 1

2018: BOS 1>LAD 3

2019: WAS 3> HOU1

 

WS Record of teams ranked 1 or 2: 11-5

WS Record of teams ranked 3-5: 5-11

 

WS Wins & League Ranks of Teams Winning the WS:

8 by #1 teams

3 by #2 teams

2 by #3 teams

3 by #4 teams

0 by #5 teams

 

This is as plain as day no crap shoot!

 

WS Losses & Team Rankings

5 by #1 teams

4 by #2 teams

3 by #3 teams

2 by #4 teams

2 by #5 teams

 

This is also no crap shoot.

 

32 teams made the WS in the last 16 seasons- if it was totally random, one would expect each ranking to make the 25% of the time (8 times in 16 years/32 teams). I'm counting the 4 and 5 ranked teams as one, since just one makes the final 8 teams.

 

Total WS winners and Loser & League Rankings

13 by the #1 teams

7 by the #2 teams

5 by the # 3 teams

7 by the #4 & 5 teams combined

 

It looks somewhat random between the 2 through 4/5 rankings, but the number one ranked team in each league has won way more often than randomly suggested. 13 instead of 8 is hardly a crap shoot.

 

A number 1 teams makes the WS 81% of the time, instead of 25%.

 

A number 1 team wins the WS 50% of the time, instead of 25%.

 

I don't think I have the wrong notion of what the word "crapshoot" means, but no matter what you think it means, it can't mean this.

 

Maybe, before 2004, it was more of a crap shoot, but more and more MLB has become a league of 3-5 super teams, and the rest lag way behind in talent level. 8 teams make the playoffs (10 if you count the both WC teams in each league).

 

Those non super teams do not have anywhere near equal odds of winning the WS or making it there. It's not even close. Not even in our new world of "alternative facts" and realities.

True that. Yankees, Astros, Dodgers were

All awesome. And I guess nationals lol.

[Bellhorn04]

Definitely a high crapshoot factor in this year's playoffs.

 

I would prefer the statement "there's a lot of crapshoot factor" over "the playoffs are a crapshoot".

[Kimmi]

Definitely a high crapshoot factor in this year's playoffs.

 

I would prefer the statement "there's a lot of crapshoot factor" over "the playoffs are a crapshoot".

 

The playoffs are not a complete crapshoot, so saying that there is a lot of crapshoot factor is probably more accurate. It's just easier to say the latter.

 

The outcome of baseball games is so highly affected by randomness that even a 162 game season doesn't give you the depth of information about how good teams really are that the 82 game NBA season gives you.

 

I know it worked out for us in 2018, and it worked out for the Dodgers in 2020, but this is why teams should never take a 'win at any cost' approach during the offseason or at the trade deadline. It's almost just as likely not to work out.

[Bellhorn04]

The playoffs are not a complete crapshoot, so saying that there is a lot of crapshoot factor is probably more accurate. It's just easier to say the latter.

 

And I say "who needs easier"?

[Bellhorn04]

I know it worked out for us in 2018, and it worked out for the Dodgers in 2020, but this is why teams should never take a 'win at any cost' approach during the offseason or at the trade deadline. It's almost just as likely not to work out.

 

And the 2021 Dodgers really went ALL IN, both in the offseason and at the trade deadline.

[Kimmi]

And I say "who needs easier"?

 

I do! LOL