How to Win the World Series

[batmagadanleadoff]

=LWFS post_id=24145 time=1570683254 user_id=84]
=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

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.

Yeah. I wouldn't wanna be a wild card because one of the two WCs is guaranteed elimination after just its first "playoff" game. Plus the WC will potentially play three elimination games to get to the WS and because WCs are usually clinched on the last day of the season, or the day before, WCs don't always have the luxury of setting up their rotation for the WC game or resting its key players in the lead-up.. But if you take a macro-look at the system, the surviving WC team that gets to the Division Series might have as good a shot as any of the other playoff teams at winning it all, given the nature of short series baseball, with its rampant luck. And it's not just short series baseball -- all of the playoff teams are good teams, so it's good teams playing each other in short series'.



It's certainly playing out that way -- this idea that the playofffs are a crapshoot and every team has about the same chance. If that turns out to be true, then the only drawback to being a WC, and it's an admittedly big one, is the one and done play in game to get into the round of four. The first place teams are guaranteed a spot in the round of four and at least three games, while the WCs aren't.

[Centerfield]

I don't know why you keep arguing as if my point was about Wild Card teams. It wasn't. It was about low win total teams. That's why I mentioned 87 wins. That's why I gave the average win total for the past 10 WS champions.



Do you not see that the 2002 Angels, who won the Wild Card with 99 wins actually bolsters, not undermines, my point?

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.

Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%.



I see you are trying to make a point about WC winners in general. And I guess you are free to make whatever point you want. I would offer that WC winners are not the same. Are they the 99 win 2002 Angels? Or the 98 Win 2003 Red Sox? Or are they the 87 win 2016 Mets?

[batmagadanleadoff]

I don't know why you keep arguing as if my point was about Wild Card teams. It wasn't. It was about low win total teams. That's why I mentioned 87 wins. That's why I gave the average win total for the past 10 WS champions. Do you not see that the 2002 Angels, who won the Wild Card with 99 wins actually bolsters, not undermines, my point? 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. Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%. I see you are trying to make a point about WC winners in general. And I guess you are free to make whatever point you want. I would offer that WC winners are not the same. Are they the 99 win 2002 Angels? Or the 98 Win 2003 Red Sox? Or are they the 87 win 2016 Mets?

_____________________________



Your analysis is just goddamn awful -- like pathetic awful -- and you're butchering up these numbers to no end to prove a point that's unprovable anyway. But before I get into the numbers, to show you where you're way way off the mark, I want to address another part of your post.

I don't know why you keep arguing as if my point was about Wild Card teams. It wasn't. It was about low win total teams. That's why I mentioned 87 wins. That's why I gave the average win total for the past 10 WS champions.

This is bullshit, too. And you've been writing a version of this throughout this whole discussion. You make it sound like you've been crystal clear about what you've been trying to demonstrate all along (you haven't) and that I've been either misunderstanding or purposely mischaracterizing your posts. But every time you write another post, you change your "thesis" or "main point" and suddenly say that you're trying to prove something very different from what you said you were trying to prove in an earlier post. You change your "point" about as often as a mood ring changes its color. So at the beginning, you insisted on limiting the sample size to postseasons played under the current playoff format. Because I was opining that WC's have about the same chance at winning the WS as any of the other playoff teams, a point that you disagreed about, I was justified in believing that you were trying to make a point about WC teams. So then you corrected me, and wrote that you were trying to make a point, not about WC teams, but about playoff teams that won at least 100 games during the regular season. It wasn't about WC teams, you said. Now you're saying that your point is about 80-something win WC teams. So now it's about WC teams again. Fine. Whatever. Not a big deal. But it looks like you've been refining your arguments in response to my counter points -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- refining arguments is actually a good thing, especially if you're striving for the truth, wherever the truth may take you, instead of simply trying to prove your first idea no matter how inconsistent it is with the evidence -- but don't make it sound like you've been taking a consistent crystal clear position here all along and that I'm either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing your posts.



But let's go on to your numbers, because this is where you really fail. So here's what you say:

Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%.

Before I get into the numbers, I just wanna point out that your cutoff is 2012. How convenient because the year before, the Wild Card Cardinals took the 2011 WS crown. A wild card team. Now the Cardinals won 90 games during the 2011 regular season, so they're not an 80 something-win team. But 90 wins is only one more win than the 89 they would've needed to win to qualify as an 80-something win team. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals had the worst regular season W-L record of any of the 2011 playoff teams, including the AL teams, too. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals personally eliminated the playoff team with the best record in baseball -- the 2011 102-win Phillies. That's a 12 game difference between the 2011 Phils and Cards. That's huge in baseball. If the two teams were division rivals, the Cards would've (naturally) finished 12 games behind the Phils and would have practically and spiritually, if not mathematically, been eliminated from 1st place by Labor Day. But so what sez me, when two good teams play a best out of five set? A best out of five game set is meaningless in determining who's the better of two good teams. Those teams would have to play each other head to head maybe 200 times for someone to say, with any mathematical meaningfulness, who's the better team. But whatever, we'll work with your set of numbers and leave the 2011 Cardinals out of this discussion. But like I said, how convenient. Okay, so once again, here's what you write:

Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%.

So this is more bullshit. Here's why: So you're talking about postseasons "since 2012". That's seven postseasons -- 2012 through 2018. Obviously, we won't include the current 2019 postseason because it's in progress and its WS winner not yet crowned. So we're talking about seven postseasons. And the thing is, that only one team could win the WS in any given year. There can't possibly be more than one WS winner in any season. So if you're talking about seven postseasons (2012-2018), those 80-something win WC playoff teams could not possibly have won more than seven WS's. At least seven of those 80-something win WC teams were guaranteed to have been eliminated before the WS team was crowned. So the conversion rate of those 14 80-something win teams isn't one out 14 -- it's one out of seven. Or 14%, not 7%. You can't logically charge those 80-something win teams with 13 failures (one out of 14) to win a WS when they could not possibly have won more than seven WS because, like I said, we're talking about seven postseasons. This would also hold true even if those 14 80-something win teams were, instead, 14 100-something win teams -- the cream of the crop of the regular seasons. Those 14 100-something win teams, just like their 80-something win team counterparts could not have won more than seven WS's and at least seven of those 100-something win teams would have "failed' in their quest to win the WS. This has absolutely nothing to do with the regular season win totals of those teams, and everything to do with the elimination round structure of playoffs baseball where only one team is left standing at the end of the playoffs. So we're talking about a one in seven conversion rate, not a one in fourteen conversion rate.



But then your analysis gets even worse. And it's because of the way those 14 80--something win teams were concentrated or distributed throughout these seven postseasons from 2012-2018. Some years had more 80-something win teams than other years. And some postseasons had none at all. Like the 2013 and 2018 postseasons. Those postseasons had zero 80-something win teams. Every single playoff team in 2013 and in 2018 had at least 90 regular season wins. Which means that those 14 80-something win WC teams that you refer to, collectively, were crammed into just five postseasons. And so they could not have possibly won more than five WS from 2012-2018 -- because, like I said, those 14 teams were crammed into just five postseasons. So the conversion rate of those 14 teams is now down to one out of five, not one out of seven or one out of fourteen. 1/5 Or 20%. Which is about triple your seven percent conversion rate. And pretty damn close to the 25% rate that would show that baseball playoffs are a total crap shoot.



So you're hanging your hat, and your whole big idea on the fact that 80-something win WC teams have won one out of five postseasons. Which is based on a microscopically and totally worthless sample size of five postseasons. And on top of that, if the Nats win the WS this year, that'll be two out of six for the WC's or 33%. And notwithstanding this 2019 postseason, if you back up just one year to include the 2011 WC WS champ Cardinals, then the conversion rate for WC teams is also two out of six or 33% which you don't wanna do (include those Cards), but whatever. Plus, if a WC team wins just one of the next three WS's, that'll be two out of eight (again, ignoring the 2011 Cards) which'll bring us to the magic 25%. Or three out of nine including the 2011 Cards. The percentages move big because we're working with tiny, statistically meaningless numbers. And the numbers, though meaningless, are consistent with my opinion, not yours.

During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%.

Well, it's 20% conversion for the 80-something win WC teams, not seven percent. And a 30% win rate for 100-something win teams isn't significantly better than the 25% crap shoot win rate. This insurmountable advantage that you claim 100 win teams have over 80-something win teams in a short series just doesn't seem to exist.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Guest

[Vic Sage]

Hey, i thought we had all found common ground in the fact that the Wilpons suck! What happened?

[Centerfield]

I thought so too. Oh well.



Anyway, batmags, to your points. First, let's argue about arguing.



I disagree that I've been unclear about my point. Or that my point is changed. I know I've quoted this before, but let me try again. My original post.

1. Better Teams Tend to Win I know this sounds like a "]I just wanna point out that your cutoff is 2012. How convenient because the year before, the Wild Card Cardinals took the 2011 WS crown. A wild card team. Now the Cardinals won 90 games during the 2011 regular season, so they're not an 80 something-win team. But 90 wins is only one more win than the 89 they would've needed to win to qualify as an 80-something win team. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals had the worst regular season W-L record of any of the 2011 playoff teams, including the AL teams, too. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals personally eliminated the playoff team with the best record in baseball -- the 2011 102-win Phillies. That's a 12 game difference between the 2011 Phils and Cards. That's huge in baseball. If the two teams were division rivals, the Cards would've (naturally) finished 12 games behind the Phils and would have practically and spiritually, if not mathematically, been eliminated from 1st place by Labor Day. But so what sez me, when two good teams play a best out of five set? A best out of five game set is meaningless in determining who's the better of two good teams. Those teams would have to play each other head to head maybe 200 times for someone to say, with any mathematical meaningfulness, who's the better team. But whatever, we'll work with your set of numbers and leave the 2011 Cardinals out of this discussion. But like I said, how convenient.

I started with 2009. But you correctly criticized my initial analysis. It covers two different playoff formats, so I adjusted and moved to the current format. And I conceded that my small sample size got even smaller. The 90 win Cardinal team, although close, is not an 80 win team. Is my adherence to round numbers arbitrary? I guess. But why stop at 90 then. Why not 91? 91 is almost 90, which is almost 89. All your points about who advances and who beats who. Great points for a different discussion. My discussion is much narrower.



Ok. Let's go to numbers.



I don't know that your point about multiple teams and only one champion being crowned is correct. I'll have to think that through. Maybe I've oversimplified, but there has to be some way to weight the fact that there have been 14 80 win WC's and only 6 100 game winners, but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow.



But let's use your rationale, but this time holding the 80's and 100's to the same criteria. My argument gets stronger. From 2012 through 2018 (7 postseasons), there are 5 post seasons that had an 80 something win WC team. Only one of those post-seasons crowned an 80 Win WC team as a champion. (20%)



In that same era, there were three years where there were 100 win teams. 2016-2018. In each of those years, the champion was a 100 game winner.



Your numbers:



80something Win WC: 20%

100 Win Team: 100%

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ok. Let's go to numbers. I don't know that your point about multiple teams and only one champion being crowned is correct. I'll have to think that through. Maybe I've oversimplified, but there has to be some way to weight the fact that there have been 14 80 win WC's and only 6 100 game winners, but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow.

My way is the right way. Suppose that in this year's postseason, all eight playoff teams, (ten if you count the WC game losers, but let's use eight for simplicity's sake, As you'll see, it doesn't matter if we use eight or ten) won at least 100 games during the regular season. This means that the WS winner will be guaranteed to have won at least 100 games during the regular season since all the playoff teams are 100-something win teams. So would you then say that the conversion rate of 100-something win teams is one out of eight and that 100-something win teams fail to win a WS 87.5% of the time? It's illogical.

Ok. Let's go to numbers. ... but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. In that same era, there were three years where there were 100 win teams. 2016-2018. In each of those years, the champion was a 100 game winner. Your numbers: 80something Win WC: 20% 100 Win Team: 100%

But you're now cherry-picking the data to come up with numbers that support your opinion. This reminds me about the discussions here on retiring Gary Carter's uniform number, when Carter's fans would come up with "rules" for retiring a Mets number that weren't well thought out and actually, quite terrible. But Gary Carter met the criteria for those rules and that was all that mattered, because Carter's proponents first decided that Carter's number should be retired and so then came up with lame requirements that Carter was guaranteed to meet. So you'd hear shit like "Carter caught all of the post-season innings" as if suddenly, catching all the post-season innings merited a uniform # retirement. Or the contrived rule, specifically crafted for Carter, and also designed to keep out the likes of Warren Spahn, that any Hall of Famer who spent a nice chunk of his career with the Mets, never mind on what the hell "nice chunk" even means, should have his Mets # retired. That's a bad rule, first of all, because most rules here are dumb since a # retirement deserves a case by case individual assessment. And mainly, because that rule, which was retro-fitted and reverse engineered solely to ensure Carter's # retirement would prevent the retirement of David Wright's #, and Wright deserves a Mets # retirement more so than any other Met that hasn't yet had his # retired. The rule would also practically require that the Mets retire Nolan Ryan's #, which would probably be beyond ridiculous. Nolan's name didn't come up a single time in all of those threads and all of those posts and all of those polls about which #s the Met should retire, and for good reason, obviously.



Anyways, you're cherry-picking the data here. Because if you wanna see how well 100-something win teams do in the playoffs, or how well the playoff team with the best record does in the playoffs, then there's absolutely no need to limit your data, conveniently, to the last three years. You could go all the way back to 1995, the beginning of WC playoffs, where 100 win teams won six of 20 WS's -- or 30% -- not meaningfully better than the 25% crap shoot rate -- and over such a small sample size, no less. Or you could go back to 1969, the beginning of divisional playoffs. Or back more than 100 years, all the way back to the first WS, to see how often the team with the better record won.



But you're cherry picking. Just like I could say that Jake deGrom's the best pitcher in the history of baseball if I limit the data to just the last two seasons.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ok. Let's go to numbers. I don't know that your point about multiple teams and only one champion being crowned is correct. I'll have to think that through. Maybe I've oversimplified, but there has to be some way to weight the fact that there have been 14 80 win WC's and only 6 100 game winners, but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. My way is the right way. Suppose that in this year's postseason, all eight playoff teams, (ten if you count the WC game losers, but let's use eight for simplicity's sake, As you'll see, it doesn't matter if we use eight or ten) won at least 100 games during the regular season. This means that the WS winner will be guaranteed to have won at least 100 games during the regular season since all the playoff teams are 100-something win teams. So would you then say that the conversion rate of 100-something win teams is one out of eight and that 100-something win teams fail to win a WS 87.5% of the time? It's illogical. Ok. Let's go to numbers. ... but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. In that same era, there were three years where there were 100 win teams. 2016-2018. In each of those years, the champion was a 100 game winner. Your numbers: 80something Win WC: 20% 100 Win Team: 100% But you're now cherry-picking the data to come up with numbers that support your opinion. This reminds me about the discussions here on retiring Gary Carter's uniform number, when Carter's fans would come up with "rules" for retiring a Mets number that weren't well thought out and actually, quite terrible. But Gary Carter met the criteria for those rules and that was all that mattered, because Carter's proponents first decided that Carter's number should be retired and so then came up with lame requirements that Carter was guaranteed to meet. So you'd hear shit like "Carter caught all of the post-season innings" as if suddenly, catching all the post-season innings merited a uniform # retirement. Or the contrived rule, specifically crafted for Carter, and also designed to keep out the likes of Warren Spahn, that any Hall of Famer who spent a nice chunk of his career with the Mets, never mind on what the hell "nice chunk" even means, should have his Mets # retired. That's a bad rule, first of all, because most rules here are dumb since a # retirement deserves a case by case individual assessment. And mainly, because that rule, which was retro-fitted and reverse engineered solely to ensure Carter's # retirement would prevent the retirement of David Wright's #, and Wright deserves a Mets # retirement more so than any other Met that hasn't yet had his # retired. The rule would also practically require that the Mets retire Nolan Ryan's #, which would probably be beyond ridiculous. Nolan's name didn't come up a single time in all of those threads and all of those posts and all of those polls about which #s the Met should retire, and for good reason, obviously. Anyways, you're cherry-picking the data here. Because if you wanna see how well 100-something win teams do in the playoffs, or how well the playoff team with the best record does in the playoffs, then there's absolutely no need to limit your data, conveniently, to the last three years. You could go all the way back to 1995, the beginning of WC playoffs, where 100 win teams won six of 20 WS's -- or 30% -- not meaningfully better than the 25% crap shoot rate -- and over such a small sample size, no less. Or you could go back to 1969, the beginning of divisional playoffs. Or back more than 100 years, all the way back to the first WS, to see how often the team with the better record won. But you're cherry picking. Just like I could say that Jake deGrom's the best pitcher in the history of baseball if I limit the data to just the last two seasons.

So I went back to the very first world series up to 1968, the year before divisional play began, to see how often the pennant winner with the best record won it all. I left out the tainted 1919 Black Sox series and the 1981 strike shortened season WS. Also, there were a few seasons where both pennant winners had identical W-L records, so those seasons didn't figure in the final totals, either.



FWIW, the team with the best record won the WS 33 times and didn't 28 times. Including the 1954 Giants, who had the best record in the history of baseball with 111 wins, but lost the WS. FWIW. Still not a meaningful sample size, and not much of an edge in any event. I'll still maintain that the WC has about as good a chance to win the WS as any other team -- "about" being the operative word. I'm not necessarily saying that every team has the exact same chance. It may turn out that a 100 win team does have some slight edge to win the WS -- say a 13 or 14% chance to win the WS and a WC team has an 11.5 or 12% chance to win it all. But that's not a meaningful difference and not the kind of edge you think that a team that wins 10 or 15 more games than a WC team won in the regular season actually has. And the reason for this, I would opine, is that the difference in quality between two teams that were 10 games apart in the regular season is not that big to begin with even though a team that's ten games behind probably knows by Labor Day, that they won't win their division. And so the edge is even tinier in a best of five or seven. If I had to put my money where my mouth is, I'd bet the Wild Card every single time.

[Centerfield]

The problem with that analysis is that the sample size includes series where the win margin was small. If you have an 97 win team playing a 94 win team you'd expect the results to mirror chance.



This time period doesn't do a lot for my theory about low win playoff teams since there really weren't that many to start with. So instead, I went through the same era and and tracked series where the win margin was 10 games or more. In those series, the favorite went 11-3. It's still a small sample size, but it suggests that the results are more than chance.



I think you may be right that there just isn't enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions. Comparing data from different playoff formats is not proper, and the current format has such a small sample size that no real conclusions can be drawn.



But where we disagree is that I don't think the data we have suggests that the teams are operating at chance.



Consider:



Since the beginning of the two WC format through last year (2012 to 2018):



*There have been 14 low win teams (win total in the 80s) and only 1 has won the World Series.

*There have been six high win teams (100+) and three of them were crowned champions.



And yes, I get that there are only 7 championships to be won by those 14 teams and that many of them had to play each other, but there were only 3 championships available to the 6 high win teams (since all were within the last three years) and one of those teams won all of them despite the fact they had to play each other as well.



In fact, during the two WC era (until this year), the only team team to eliminate a 100 win team was another 100 win team.



2016: 103 Win Cubs won it all. Went 3-0 .

2017: 101 Win Astros won it all (3-0). 104 Win Dodgers (2-1). Lost to the 101 win Astros.

2018: 108 Win Red Sox won it all (3-0). 101 Win Astros (1-1). Lost to the 108 Win RS. 100 Win Yankees (1-1) Won the WC game, then lost in ALDS to the 108 win RS.



The 100 win teams are 13-0 in series when they are matched against non 100 win teams. The Dodgers loss to the Nats this year marks the first 100 win team in the two WC format to lose a series to a non 100 win team. And I get that this could all be chance, but I think these results suggest something more is there.



I don't know. I guess we can table this discussion for ten years and see where things stand then.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Maybe we should stick to dissing the Wilpons because the more I read this exchange, the more I realize that we have even less common ground than I once thought we did. So now what's Vic gonna think?



I think we're talking about different things here. And while there's some overlap in subject matter between our opinions, there's a lot that doesn't overlap.



What I'm saying is that I think that all playoff teams, more or less, have about the same chance, or close to it, to win the World Series. I'm not necessarily interested in the results of head-to-head matchups between individual or specific teams. So, I'm not looking for how well overall, a 100-something win playoff team does against an 80-something win playoff team. Let me illustrate:



Suppose that next season, there are four 100-something win teams and four 80-something win teams in the 2020 playoffs. If one of the 80-something win teams should win it all -- win the 2020 WS -- I would claim that that result supports my belief -- that a playoff team that's on the lower end win-wise has about as good a chance to the win the WS as its higher win-total counterparts. And I believe this to be so because of the nature of short baseball series between two good teams and that baseball is overloaded with luck, and so a short series in baseball is a terrible and inefficient way to determine which of two baseball teams that are both good to begin with, is the better team. That's all that I'm looking for -- the WS winner. If it should turn out that during those 2020 playoffs, all four 100-something win teams went head to head against all four 80-something win teams, and that the 100 win teams took three out of the four series against the 80 win teams, well that's fine by me, but that's not what I'm looking at. As far as I'm concerned, that's besides the point. I'm just looking at the WS winner.



So when those 14 80-something win teams that made the playoffs beginning with the 2012 playoff format were all crammed into just five postseasons, I used "]
In fact, during the two WC era (until this year), the only team team to eliminate a 100 win team was another 100 win team.



2016: 103 Win Cubs won it all. Went 3-0 .

2017: 101 Win Astros won it all (3-0). 104 Win Dodgers (2-1). Lost to the 101 win Astros.

2018: 108 Win Red Sox won it all (3-0). 101 Win Astros (1-1). Lost to the 108 Win RS. 100 Win Yankees (1-1) Won the WC game, then lost in ALDS to the 108 win RS.



The 100 win teams are 13-0 in series when they are matched against non 100 win teams.

[Centerfield]

I think we have two different argument styles and we are trying to opine on a topic where the data is very hard to analyze. Still, I think it's fun, and I've enjoyed the back and forth. I love when people come back at me with data. I feel like I learn something in those exchanges.



Back to the numbers. Let's use your method to measure success. You are correct. The 80 win teams are crammed into 5 post season and I missed the 2015 Cardinals. So 80 win teams are 1 for 5 (20%). The 100 win teams are crammed into four post seasons, so they are 3 for 4 (75%). And this small adjustment demonstrates the foolish nature of dealing with this small sample size. 20% vs. 75% is much closer than 14% vs. 100%. There is still a difference, but the difference seems less stark.



But this method fails to weight the fact that there are more 80 win teams than 100 win teams. That's why I maintain that this is not the proper analysis. There have been 14 80 win teams, and 7 100 win teams. Twice as many. The 80 win teams are spread out over 5 post seasons, where the 100 win teams are represented in four. So if you operate at chance, the 80 win teams should have more titles, since there have been twice as many teams and one additional year. But it's just the opposite. The 100 win teams hold the advantage 3-1. That's the reason I think there is something more than chance working here.



My original point wasn't about head-to-head matchups either. But I brought that up to refute your analysis of head to head matchups.

This time period doesn't do a lot for my theory about low win playoff teams since there really weren't that many to start with. So instead, I went through the same era and and tracked series where the win margin was 10 games or more.

Feel free to disregard since I think we are having enough issues with our original discussion.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=24438 time=1571150891 user_id=65]


But this method fails to weight the fact that there are more 80 win teams than 100 win teams. That's why I maintain that this is not the proper analysis. There have been 14 80 win teams, and 7 100 win teams. Twice as many. The 80 win teams are spread out over 5 post seasons, where the 100 win teams are represented in four. So if you operate at chance, the 80 win teams should have more titles, since there have been twice as many teams and one additional year. But it's just the opposite. The 100 win teams hold the advantage 3-1. That's the reason I think there is something more than chance working here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24441 time=1571152747 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=24438 time=1571150891 user_id=65]


But this method fails to weight the fact that there are more 80 win teams than 100 win teams. That's why I maintain that this is not the proper analysis. There have been 14 80 win teams, and 7 100 win teams. Twice as many. The 80 win teams are spread out over 5 post seasons, where the 100 win teams are represented in four. So if you operate at chance, the 80 win teams should have more titles, since there have been twice as many teams and one additional year. But it's just the opposite. The 100 win teams hold the advantage 3-1. That's the reason I think there is something more than chance working here.