Baseball’s Big Spenders Should Beware

[Wolf Hopper]

See: http://www.netshrine.com/20031220.html

Discussion welcome and appreciated.

[Wolf Hopper]

Just an add on to the SOTS feature - - -

very few teams "just missed" making the 100/100 club:

Yankees 1939*
Cubs 1945
Yankees 1958*
Pirates 1909*
Cubs 1935
Indians 1906**

were all in the 90+/90+ club.

*won world series
** finished 3rd in standings

note, only one team (58 Yanks) above was from the last 45 years.

[SmedIndy]

Kind of re-affirms what Billy Beane said - the playoffs are just "luck".

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Nothing unusual about it at all.

Look -- of the twelve dominant teams BEFORE 1969, 6 won the World Series. That's 50%, which is exactly the odds of a team winning the WS in a two-team playoff.

Of the 8 dominant teams on the list since 1994, only 1 has won the World Series. That's 12.5%, which is exactly the odds of a team winning it all in an eight-team playoff.

If anything, your list of dominant teams proves that the additional playoffs system reduces the chances of any great team winning it all. The odds coincide EXACTLY with the results from your list.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

Kind of re-affirms what Billy Beane said - the playoffs are just "luck".

I cannot buy into this 100% - that luck, or probability (as Ytown cites) is the sole reason why teams win or lose in the post-season. Yes, at times, teams in a series might get a lucky of or lucky break at times; but, I think more often than not, winning and losing is the residue of design, not luck.

How is it luck or probability that the 2002 Red Sox did not win in the post-season (or, better asked, not make the post-season)?

How is it luck or probability that the 2001 M's averaged 2 runs a game in all of their ALCS losses?

How is it luck or probability that the 2001 A's choked THREE times in a row in the ALDS?

More so, I think the case is that even "super power" teams can lose in certain match-ups - that's it. You lose. You were beat. It's not luck or probability. They other team played better and won. Period.

[sweaver]

You can flip a coin and get tails three times in a row. That's not "getting beat," it's the luck of the draw.

[Craig S.]

The theory of "luck" in the playoffs offered by Beane and others sounds like nothing more to me than the loser's mantra.

While I appreciate the effort it takes to make the playoffs over a 162-game schedule, I think that great teams have an ability to win when the pressure is at its greatest. Writing off a playoff loss to luck is the easy way out.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by sweaver

You can flip a coin and get tails three times in a row. That's not "getting beat," it's the luck of the draw.

Are you saying that playing a series of baseball games is the same, in terms of outcome and effort, as flipping a coin?

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by Craig S.

The theory of "luck" in the playoffs offered by Beane and others sounds like nothing more to me than the loser's mantra.

Just made me think - when was the last time that a team that won said afterwards "We won; but, in the post-season, it's just luck. We were lucky."?