How to Win the World Series

[Centerfield]

Two one hundred game winners face elimination tonight at the hands of wild card teams. All of this had fed storylines of "the Post-Season is a crapshoot" and "Once you get in, you never know what will happen." And though that's true to some extent (or else LA would already have a title), I think most would be surprised to see that the last ten years suggests that the post-season isn't quite as random as one might expect.



A couple of things are true.



1. Better Teams Tend to Win



I know this sounds like a "duh" statement, but the prevailing logic is that once you get in, any team can get hot, and a 87 win Wild Card team can run the table. The fact is, in the last ten years, it just doesn't happen that often. Of the last 10 WS Champions, 4 of them won 100+ games. 8 of the 10 were Division Champions, and the average number of wins for a WS Champ is 97.1. Better teams win the World Series. And this makes sense. Once an 80+ win team sneaks in through the Wild Card, it has to engage in a series of upsets, and the chances of that happening through three (now 4) rounds, is unlikely. In the last 10 years, only one team (2014 Giants) fit this bill. Wild Card winner with 88 wins went on a run. Every other WS champion won 90+ games, and 8 of the remaining 9 won their division.





2. It Helps To Make the Playoffs Frequently



I know. Another obvious statement. But this is why I harp so much on sustained success and batmags brings up 2 division titles in 30 years. A common thread for these WS Champions is that they give themselves multiple chances at winning. The Yankees lead all the champions with 7 post season appearances in the last ten years. The Cards have six, the Red Sox 5. The average number of post-season appearances for the WS champions is 4.4. The only team to win it all with only 2 appearances are the KC Royals. Every other champion has had sustained success.





So basically, in the last ten years, there have been 2 outliers. The 2014 Giants had a low win total. In fact, their three championship teams have 3 of the lowest 4 win totals. But they offset some of this by getting to the post-season 4 times (still below average but close). And the KC Royals only made the post-season twice. But the team that won it all was a 95 game Division Winner (again, below average but close). Every other champion won at least 90 games and made the playoffs regularly.



Which brings us to the Mets. The Mets don't make the playoffs often. Only twice in the last ten years. And even when they did, those teams didn't have a high win total (average of 88.5 wins). No WS Champion in the last ten years has met this profile. And that's troubling, because this is exactly the type of team that the Wilpons insist on fielding.



If you want to win a championship, the goal should be to win 97 games and make the playoffs a minimum of 4 times in 10 years. Can any of us realistically see this happening during the Wilpon era?

[Frayed Knot]

I was thinking of this same topic earlier but pessimistically came to a different conclusion: I realized that while there were four 100+ win teams this year in MLB (an unusual case to start with) it's quite possible

that by tomorrow three of the four are going to get out of the way in the very first round thereby paving a flower-strewn path for the fourth.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

3. Be the first team to win 4 games

[Gwreck]

It's the “stuck in the middle” philosophy that is the problem.



There is no appetite for a full scale tear-down and rebuild. We'll call this the Houston model. Because not that long ago, Houston had six losing seasons in a row, including 3 consecutive seasons of 100+ losses. That's a lot of draft picks and chances to develop a winning base of young talent, but 6 years of losing is also a long time. The Mets, as you might recall, also endured 6 losing seasons from 2009-2014. But instead of rebuilding, there were instead half-measures towards winning, which predictably didn't work out. And while there were a few moves made towards rebuilding (Beltran trade, Dickey trade), so much more could have been done. Reyes walked with no compensation; Wright was resigned, etc.



So then there is also the Dodgers/Red Sox model, in which money is no object at adding necessary parts to existing talent. To be fair, the Mets did develop some really good players over the past few years: deGrom, Conforto, Alonso, etc. But management is unwilling to take the next steps to embrace the LA/Red Sox model either. This is the saddest part of having had the six losing seasons followed by 2015: there was a real opportunity to capitalize on a set of young, cost-controlled starting pitchers that could drive sustained success. But perish the thought of spending money on offense or depth.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=24049 time=1570641837 user_id=65] In the last 10 years, only one team (2014 Giants) fit this bill. Wild Card winner with 88 wins went on a run. Every other WS champion won 90+ games, and 8 of the remaining 9 won their division.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24065 time=1570647183 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24049 time=1570641837 user_id=65] In the last 10 years, only one team (2014 Giants) fit this bill. Wild Card winner with 88 wins went on a run. Every other WS champion won 90+ games, and 8 of the remaining 9 won their division.

[Centerfield]

I don' think my statements are profound. In fact, I think I explicitly state that they are obvious. I hear you about the small sample size. I work with what I have.



Let's go back to my actual point, which was not about Wild Cards in general, but specifically, the type of teams the Wilpons look to build.

the prevailing logic is that once you get in, any team can get hot, and a 87 win Wild Card team can run the table. The fact is, in the last ten years, it just doesn't happen that often.

It looks like this is a relatively new phenomenon since the institution of the second wild card. So I guess it makes sense to limit the analysis to this format since prior formats will throw off the math. Also, prior to that, a lot of the wild cards were legitimate high 90's win teams which is outside of my thesis.



Anyway, since 2012 and the institution of the two WC format, there have been 13 Wild Card winners that won less than 90 games. Of those 13 teams, only one of them won the World Series.



By contrast, there have been six 100 game winners and three of them have won it all.



Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65]


Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[kcmets]

4. Avoid injuries to star players, particularly season-ending injuries and

ones that drag into another season or result missing several seasons.



(sorry, that's all I got except the LA/BOS model that Gwreck mentions

but that is about a likely as Jeff becoming King of Siam)



(honorable mention to 3. submitted by 'bucket)

[Centerfield]

You're talking about playoff teams that usually aren't significantly better than each other playing a handful of games against each other in a sport that reeks of luck, way more than any of the other sports.

This is what I'm trying to address. There are those that say "Why bother to win 100 games? The post season is just a roll of the dice anyway." I submit that it's not. The early returns suggest that it very much matters.

[Centerfield]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65]


Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

[metsmarathon]

a hundred win team has a much better chance of getting INTO the playoffs, which is the first step a team must take in order to win the playoffs.

[kcmets]

Calling making it to the one-game play-in making it to the post season throws

things off too.



Playoffs? Don't talk about—playoffs?! You kidding me? Playoffs?! I just hope we

can win a game! Another game!

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=24073 time=1570650847 user_id=65]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65]


Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

[Centerfield]

This is what I'm saying:



Thesis:

I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October.



The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%).



Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=24077 time=1570652440 user_id=65]
This is what I'm saying:



Thesis:

I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October.



The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%).



Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.
Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

And even if they are in fact on equal footing, which is dubious, it's far better to shoot for 100 wins because, as marathon states above, your chances of getting into the playoffs are much better. You're much less likely to have to try to fend off five other teams in the final weeks of the season, and also to have to sweat out that one-game elimination round.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And even if they are in fact on equal footing, which is dubious, it's far better to shoot for 100 wins because, as marathon states above, your chances of getting into the playoffs are much better. You're much less likely to have to try to fend off five other teams in the final weeks of the season, and also to have to sweat out that one-game elimination round.

That's true.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24076 time=1570651663 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24073 time=1570650847 user_id=65]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65]


Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[Centerfield]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24078 time=1570653022 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24077 time=1570652440 user_id=65]
This is what I'm saying:



Thesis:

I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October.



The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%).



Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=24083 time=1570653624 user_id=65]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24078 time=1570653022 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24077 time=1570652440 user_id=65]
This is what I'm saying:



Thesis:

I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October.



The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%).



Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.

[Vic Sage]

common ground found: The Wilpons suck.

[LWFS]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]But still, the WC teams are just one WS away from the 25% win rate. Hardly anything to hang your hat by.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=LWFS post_id=24105 time=1570665696 user_id=84]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]But still, the WC teams are just one WS away from the 25% win rate. Hardly anything to hang your hat by.

[nymr83]

now that there are 2 wild cards that play a play-in game, each individual wild card team has halved its chances because they need to win an extra "round" (game). if the post season is a crap shoot you are still twice as likely to win the WS by winning your division. so maybe we should try to build a division winner.

[Frayed Knot]

And then there's the TV network pov on Wild Cards:

- in the NFL, a team winning, or even getting to, the SB from a 5th or 6th conference seed is a wonderful thing and serves to show both the balance in the league and the wonderful design of their playoff set-up

- in MLB a WC advancing beyond the 1st round shows how the sport too often doesn't get the best teams to get to the WS and shows why the meaningless regular season needs to be ignored

[bmfc1]

You don't bring in Clayton Kershaw in relief. That's one way.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Have great players, like Scherzer, Soto and Rendon.

[Frayed Knot]

So in the NL this year the top two records are (or are about to be) eliminated, and the top one in the AL is on the brink.

[LWFS]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24111 time=1570667996 user_id=68]
=LWFS post_id=24105 time=1570665696 user_id=84]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68]But still, the WC teams are just one WS away from the 25% win rate. Hardly anything to hang your hat by.