4 favorites out...

[Angels]

While anything can happen in a short series, it's not entirely a crapshoot.

Playing Game 3 with Wilson starting (for example) was anything but a coin flip type of game. That game heavily favored the Royals.

Some teams are also way better equipped for the postseason than they are in the regular season.

But yeah, with the kind of minuscule sample we're talking about.. "upsets" are a common thing. Had the Angels and Royals played each other 100 times the Angels probably would have won more than they lost. But that's what makes playoff baseball exciting and unpredictable. It's a small sample and anything can happen.

[Docwaukee]

I refuse to believe there are any "elements" that help you win in the playoffs besides the normal things you need to have a good team (ie pitching, hitting and defense).

You can look back afterward and say "oh this team won because they did x." But you don't need to do x to win. Because in another series, the team won because they did y. And in another series it was because of z.

So you need x or y or z, but none of those mean anything because sometimes you do x and the other team does y and in their series y beats x.

It's like a big game of rock, paper scissors.

These short series really are crap shoots. What if Aoki doesn't make either of those circus catches in the first game? What if Cowgill beats that play at 3b in game 2? Guessing either of those wins the game for the Angels. Did they suddenly have more of grit/determination/confidence/balls?

They are coin flips. Entertaining coin flips.

agree. any team can beat any other in a short series, and not just in the playoffs. But when it gets to the post season, it's even more random because every team that makes it is at least a pretty good team.  

 

the intangibles are just that.  Not only are they not quantifiable, but you don't know which on will actually be important when the time comes.  In part because it depends on who you are playing, and how you are playing  at that moment.  

 

the giants won tonight on a wild pitch.  

 

crap shoot.   

[Docwaukee]

While anything can happen in a short series, it's not entirely a crapshoot.

Playing Game 3 with Wilson starting (for example) was anything but a coin flip type of game. That game heavily favored the Royals.

Some teams are also way better equipped for the postseason than they are in the regular season.

But yeah, with the kind of minuscule sample we're talking about.. "upsets" are a common thing. Had the Angels and Royals played each other 100 times the Angels probably would have won more than they lost. But that's what makes playoff baseball exciting and unpredictable. It's a small sample and anything can happen.

but which ones? 

 

there is no true formula. we had Weaver vs. Vargas in game 1.  I'm sure we were heavily favored.  

 

Any given game is decided by on or two key things you can't account for.  

 

Even over the long haul of a 162 game season, run differential charts don't match up to team records perfectly.  5 games is 3% of a season and you are playing those games against teams that are typically within about 10% of each other in win totals.  

 

It may not be totally random, but no one has figured out how to control the variables.  So it's a crap shoot.  

[tennischmp]

I guess the Angels are really bad at crapshoots and the Giants, Cardinals, Red Sox are really good. at crapshoots. Oh well

[Hollyw00d]

They won because they made less mistakes and played better baseball.

[Brandon]

Agreed.

 

It's why I was fairly stern in recent threads and tired of the stupidity and shitty posts.

 

In theory, because it is a best of series the better team wins in the long run. But two games were extra innings games decided by miniscule parts that added up. I used the word crapshoot, but I think you can quantify or add variables like momentum and crucial plays (not exact figures, but if you consider variance in poker the same way you can quantify lost and won edges or "luck") which are what the Royals had as an added edge. If Aoki doesn't make that circus catch in game 1 we win it and kill their momentum.

 

But yeah, this whole nonsense of firing coaches or releasing players because of a small sample of three games is retarded.

[Angels]

I meant that (example) if a team has 3 excellent starters but 2 awful starters then they are already better equipped for postseason play since those 2 awful starters wouldn't be needed (as they were in the regular season). Or a team having 2 Kershaws and 3 Blantons. That team suddenly becomes better equipped for postseason play. Then picture a team having 5 average starters. They wouldn't necessarily be better equipped for postseason play.

But yeah, small sample, anything goes. Can't predict it and you don't know what will happen. It may as well be a flip of the coin even though it really isn't, if that makes sense.

[ScottT]

I wouldn't say the Angels have been really bad at crapshoots.  They are 3-4 in ALDS.   Red Sox are 6-4.   

 

Again, though, how many players on this Angels team were on the last team that made the playoffs?  Not many.  Team records in the playoffs are usually irrelevant other than when it comes to fan psyche.  

[tennischmp]

I wouldn't say the Angels have been really bad at crapshoots.  They are 3-4 in ALDS.   Red Sox are 6-4.   

The Red Sox overall postseason W/L is much better than the Angels the last decade and a half.

[tennischmp]

Again, though, how many players on this Angels team were on the last team that made the playoffs?  Not many. 

You just had to go there didn't you.

[ABC]

We have the Rally Monkey

Make Some Noise

Kiss Cam

Buttercup

Steal third base

The rockpile

The Trout Farm

The light wave

Fireworks

Thunder stix

 

Looks like you have never been to a game outside of Anaheim.

[QuinlansMinion]

If the postseason is a crap shoot then I want whatever dice the Red Sox, Giants, and Cardinals are using.

[AngelsFaninGA]

What's the point of even making the playoffs if it's a crapshoot? The crapshoot argument implies that postseason results are completely random and thus that the playoffs themselves are meaningless. In theory, you could throw the Twins, Rangers, and Cubs in there and they'd have an equal chance to win. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

What's the point of even making the playoffs if it's a crapshoot? The crapshoot argument implies that postseason results are completely random and thus that the playoffs themselves are meaningless. In theory, you could throw the Twins, Rangers, and Cubs in there and they'd have an equal chance to win.

It's a crap shoot because only teams that are relatively similar in talent are allowed in.

You are taking a bunch of teams that won 55 to 60 percent of their games and having them play 5 games against each other. Not a lot different than flipping coins.

As for the Red Sox and Giants and Cardinals,

You're still talking a small sample size. If you took the Angels of 2002-2005, they won 4 of 6 postseason series. (Also, the Red Sox and Giants combined to win zero World Series from 1955-2003, Cardinals won none from 83-05.)

As an aside, would you rather be a Marlins fan? They have never lost a postseason series.

[shellback]

short series suck. like to see the leauge do something like start the season earlier or adjust the schedule somehow to make these series all 7 games. i would guess mlb gets thier best media exposure, sells more crap (t shirts etc) and has max public interest during the playoffs. it would be a much more accurate test of who the best team is.

its also possible that the leauge doesn't give a shit about the best team winning.

[Jeff Fletcher]

short series suck. like to see the leauge do something like start the season earlier or adjust the schedule somehow to make these series all 7 games. i would guess mlb gets thier best media exposure, sells more crap (t shirts etc) and has max public interest during the playoffs. it would be a much more accurate test of who the best team is.

its also possible that the leauge doesn't give a shit about the best team winning.

Much more? Really? Because there's a big difference between 5 and 7? It would be a little more accurate. A little. Instead of the best team winning 53 percent of the time they'd win like 56 percent of the time. Wooooo!

And, I've said this a thousand times, the purpose of the playoffs (in any sport) is not to determine the best team.

It is to make money.

Money comes from people watching, and people watch because everything is on the line in a small window. More elimination games, more do or die games, the better.

If you just wanted the best team to get the trophy you'd have no leagues, no divisions. All 30 teams would play each other equally and have one big ranking of 1 to 30 based on wins. Team with the most at the end wins. Pretty exciting, huh?

[shellback]

Much more? Really? Because there's a big difference between 5 and 7? It would be a little more accurate. A little. Instead of the best team winning 53 percent of the time they'd win like 56 percent of the time. Wooooo!

And, I've said this a thousand times, the purpose of the playoffs (in any sport) is not to determine the best team.

It is to make money.

Money comes from people watching, and people watch because everything is on the line in a small window. More elimination games, more do or die games, the better.

If you just wanted the best team to get the trophy you'd have no leagues, no divisions. All 30 teams would play each other equally and have one big ranking of 1 to 30 based on wins. Team with the most at the end wins. Pretty exciting, huh?

oh. you mean how it was set up for over a hundred years with two leauge winners and a world series?

"it is to make money"- thanks for agreeing with me.

back when i could count 7 was more than 3

[Torridd]

And none of those teams have Non-Clutch players like Howie and gawd awful Hamilton...

Why is HK continually called out in these diatribes? He's not your prototypical clean up guy, was robbed by Aoki and was one of many to not hit.

 

HK is one of the best second basemen in the majors, yet some still want him gone for some unknown reason.

[AngelsFaninGA]

It's a crap shoot because only teams that are relatively similar in talent are allowed in.

You are taking a bunch of teams that won 55 to 60 percent of their games and having them play 5 games against each other. Not a lot different than flipping coins.

As for the Red Sox and Giants and Cardinals,

You're still talking a small sample size. If you took the Angels of 2002-2005, they won 4 of 6 postseason series. (Also, the Red Sox and Giants combined to win zero World Series from 1955-2003, Cardinals won none from 83-05.)

As an aside, would you rather be a Marlins fan? They have never lost a postseason series.

 

That's basically saying that the playoff model is a poor determinant of which team out of those 10 is really the best (and I don't disagree). So really, the WS itself is a fairly meaningless exhibition and we may as well crown the 10 best teams co-champions after the regular season ends and call it a day. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

oh. you mean how it was set up for over a hundred years with two leauge winners and a world series?

"it is to make money"- thanks for agreeing with me.

back when i could count 7 was more than 3

It was only that way for about 65 years. And the team with the better record still lost the World Series lots of times.

Do you want the best team to win or do you want to be entertained?

[Stradling]

The term crap shoot is really being over used. Unless there is one team out there that is truly a dominating team, then a lot of series are more of a coin flip where one thing can decide a game which could also decide a series. The two things that stood out to me in the Angels vs Royal series is our lack of hitting and their outfield defense. More times than not it is teams that are on a roll, have momentum or basically had to battle all the way to the final weekend just to secure either a playoff spot or the division. They have been battle tested to the end. This year, I knew the Angels would struggle in the first game of the playoffs, but was hoping they could win an ugly game. Where I thought this team would be battle tested is the fact that they won a lot of games, but they won a TON of close games, which is what the playoffs would be like.

[halobob]

How can anyone say the mlb playoffs are not a crap shoot under the current format?

[floplag]

Because you cant quantify "crapshoot" statistically... therefore a lot of people have trouble understanding the concept.  Stats are suggetive, not absolute.

We have said many times on this board that a short series or a small sample isnt indicative of much.. that doesn't change just because those games fall in Oct anymore than it does in June

[fan_since79]

The teams that advanced know how to win. You've got to have moxie, grit, chemistry, fire, continuity, heart, balls, and the will to win.  

 

And some guys who can hit a baseball.

 

That would have helped immensely.

[sneaky_flute]

Do people think the GMs of particular teams have some special power that allows them to identify shitty players who excel in the playoffs?