In Any Given October

by stusviews on Oct 30, 2006 4:51 PM EST Comment 12 comments

Like many Yankee fans, I followed the playoffs ensuing the Yankees departure with frustration as teams clearly inferior to the Bombers played on and in the case of the Cardinals eventually won it all.

As I've diaried previously however, this is not an unfamiliar feeling. The 2002 Angels are the only recent WS champ that I thought was clearly superior to that year's Yankee team (the 04 and 05 Sox of varying colors were on a par with the Yanks).

While explanation after explanation is offered, I keep coming back to the role of luck in baseball. If the Yankees and Tigers played 45 games, the Yanks would win a majority most of the time. However if they play 5, then the Yankees would win only slightly more than 50% of the time.

Here is what I'm not sure about however: The same is not true in pro basketball or football (I don't follow hockey). There, it seems the better team wins an individual game far more often than in baseball, and in the case of the NBA, a 5 or 7 game series almost all the time.

What is different about baseball?

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Streaks

While there are hot and cold streaks in other sports, none are more pronounced than in baseball.

Also, in other sports, talent can take over a game much more effectively.

by onehitwonder on Oct 30, 2006 5:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Easy

You're attempting to use a cylindrical stick to hit a round ball, being throw from 60 feet, six inches, at speeds ranging from 70 mph to 100 mph, with varying degrees of movement.

And then, if you manage to actually make contact, you have to hit it within the arc of a narrow degree (does anyone know the arc of a baseball field off the top of his or her head?).

Finally, if you manage to do both of those correctly, you need to hit it out of the reach of nine fielders. So yeah, luck is huge.

The Sporting Brews
Editorializing the Yanks since 2005.

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 30, 2006 5:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Luck has a lot to do with it. The Cardinals were a lame team, and they won it all, go figure. We were great until we sucked against the mediocre Detroit. Who swept the A's. It's been a weird postseason for sure.

by Greenfuzz on Oct 30, 2006 8:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pitching rotations

Definitely not in football- if you're around .600 in the NFL, you're probably a wild card team (9 or 10 wins), while in MLB you're a 97-98 game winner and this year would have the best record in the league. It's because the most important player in the game changes every day- imagine if Payton Manning only played every fourth or fifth game and they had their backups the rest of the time. There's just not enough pitching talent relative to hitting ability for a team to expect to win the majority of games started by everyone in the rotation- almost every team has a losing pitcher.

by SP on Oct 31, 2006 8:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sample size

We see the "best" team get knocked off all the time in football. Also, with a shorter schedule there is less time to establish who really is the better team. I remember reading that the average difference between a win and a loss in the NFL is less than 3 points. One lucky break can change an entire football postseason.
Out of 162 games, the Yankees won 2 more than the Tigers. The Yanks score 163 more runs than they allowed, the Tiger's scored 147 more than they allowed. Their Pythagorimic record was an identical 95-67.
I know why our eyes convinced us the Yanks were better (lineup, dominated Tigers in regular season, experience). But the numbers say these were two relatively equal teams.

Have faith in the Yankees my son. Think of the great DiMaggio.

by jscape2000 on Oct 31, 2006 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

nfl vs mlb

It's a very unscientific study but in 7 of the 12 years since 1995 the Super Bowl winner at least had the best record in their conference. In baseball I think that has only happened in 1998 and 1999.

by stusviews on Oct 31, 2006 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Time for change

It's past time to expand the division series to best of 7. I also believe those teams with the best record truly need homefield advantage--games 1,2,3 and 7 at home.

Expanding the series doesn't eliminate luck, but it does allow the cream to rise.

by Ronster22 on Oct 31, 2006 3:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It does though

decrease the percentages of luck.

by ReLaunch on Oct 31, 2006 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, it doesn't

decrease the percentages of luck.

You cannot quantify luck. Therefore, you cannot say that more games increase or decrease the percentages of luck. Luck is situational (ie pitchers throwing poorly to first or third base and) it either happens (a lucky outcome) or it doesn't.

What you can quantify is an outcome. (likelihood of a hitter hitting, for example). Over a longer series, you can increase the likelihood of a statistic bearing itself out (a .300 hitter will likely hit .300 at some point in time), but it's still only a probability.

by detroit yankee on Oct 31, 2006 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs