Brandon

This has been debated a lot on television and radio since the Yankees lost to the Indians in a 5-game series this year because it impacted what happened to Joe Torre and it impacts fan's opinions on how they view A-Rod's value..

I don't think it's a total crapshoot. I do think a lot of teams lose to lesser teams in the playoffs because of hot/cold streaks or luck but I also view it as it is possible to have the best team. To me, the Red Sox could have played this postseason 10 times and in most years they would have won. They had a guy like Beckett who you figure is going to be more dominate then not in most his starts..

I don't think it's fair to label the postseason as a total crapshoot because if that were the case and managers and group of players don't matter then why do we have teams like the Yankees from '96-00 winning every year or the current Red Sox who've won twice in the past four years?

Dr. Giganto

MY feelings on this are pretty well-known...but I'll provide evidence of the crapshoot theory.

Baseball Prospectus looked at all MLB postseason serieses since 1903, and looked at how often the team with the better record won. I then looked at 2003-2007. Any serieses between teams with equal numbers of wins were stricken from the results

All time, the "better team" has gone 124-105, for a winning percentage of .541

In 5-game serieses, the better team has gone 45-40, for a winning percentage of .529.

Think about that. Over the course of 105 years, the "worse team" has won 46% of all playoff serieses played, 47% if you only look at 5-game serieses.

Then, let's take home-field advantage into account. The all-time record for home teams since 1901 in ALL games played in that time is .541

So, we have to take home-field advantage into account. For a 5-game series between two teams that are EXACTLY evenly-matched (i.e., both teams would have a 50% chance of winning on a neutral field), the better team should win at a .513 clip, assuming the home team has a 54.1% chance of winning each game.

Thus, in the 85 5-game serieses played thus far, the advantage of the "better" team has only been 1.6%. Basically, it's a toss-up.

Thus, the chances of the "better" team winning are greater than 50%, but it's not that much better. When the team wit a worse record has a 47% chance of winning the series, I'd call that a crapshoot.

As for why did the Yankees win 3 in a row and 4 in 5 years? Simple: Luck. They werent the best team all 4 years

Why did the Red Sox win 2 in 4 years? Luck.

Why did the Braves, Twins, and A's lose so many times? Luck.

There is an element of talent, of course. The best team talent-wise will have a slightly higher chance of winning the World Series than the other 7 teams. But when it comes down to it, and when the games actually are played, the "best" team will go home disappointed more often than not, especially with the current 3-round format

__________________

Brandon

I don't disagree with your argument except one thing.. the team with the better record over 162 games isn't always the team that is favored to win the world series. The Yankees were the wild card team this year and Vegas still had them as the favorite to win it all.

How can the Vegas odds makers get away with labeling a team as being the favorite if they really aren't??

Obviously, Vegas doesn't take into account what the record is.. I'd like to see some stats to see how well Vegas predicts the world series outcome compared to that of these numbers you've provided.

Also, I really think the only year the Yanks didn't have the best on paper roster was '96. The '98, '99, and 2000 teams were STACKED.

Brandon

I don't know.. I feel like the playoffs have a lot to do with execution. To me, when a pitcher executes his pitches, the defense makes plays, the hitters come through with men on base.. some credit is deserved.

I understand the bloop hits and balls that go foul by an inch, but that's what the 7-game series is supposed to take care of. It's supposed to make up for luck and come down to execution over the course of the series.

Dr. Giganto

I couldnt really find a record for Vegas's sportsbooks, but there's an important thing to remember. Vegas's goal isnt to set a "fair" line. Their goal is to set a line such that an equal amount of money gets wagered on both sides.

Just in case some of the people reading this don't really know how sports betting work, I'll use the hypothetical example of the Cleveland Indians vs. the New York Yankees in the ALDS.

Let's say Vegas thinks the teams are exactly 100% even, so it sets the line at even money. Vegas takes 10% of all winning bets. This is called the "vig". So now, let's say 10 million gets wagered on the Yankees, but only 5 million gets wagered onthe Indians. If the Yankees hold on to win, Vegas will have to pay out $9 million to the people who bet on the Yankees ($10 million minus the 10% vig), but they only collect $5 million from the people who bet on the Indians. Thus, Vegas loses $4 million from this series. Using the same calculations, Vegas would win $6 million if the Indians win. But still, there is a chance of a big loss.

Now, let's say instead, Vegas sets line at Yankees -150 and Indians +140. That means that every $1.50 wagered on the Yankees will pay out a $1 profit if the Yankees win, and each $1 wagered on the Indians will pay a $1.40 profit if the Indians win. Now, let's say $8.85 million is wagered on the Yankees and $6.15 million is wagered on the Indians.

If the Yankees win, Vegas pays out $5.9 million to the people who bet on the Yankees, but collects $6.15 million from the people who bet on the Indians, giving a profit of $250,000.

If the Indians win, Vegas pays out $8.61 million to the people who bet the Indians, but collects $8.85 million from the people who bet the Yankees, giving a profit of $240,000

By adjusting the line, the Vegas guaranteed themselves a profit, whereas before they had a 50% chance of a huge loss. No matter who wins, Vegas makes a profit of about $250,000

So, it's not in Vegas's best interests to set a "fair" line. Vegas tries to set the line so that the appropriate amount of money will be wagered on both sides to guarantee a profit

The general public is more likely to bet on the Yankees than the Indians, since hte Yankees are a much higher-profile team, so Vegas has to set the line accordingly, even if they believe the Indians are the better team.

__________________

CM Diddy

IMO it is a crapshoot, because yes the Red Sox won, and they had the best team on paper, but it sure the hell didnt look like they were going to win it all back in August and September, where they played .500 baseball at best, and barely held off the Yankees for the division, in which they had a 13 game lead. They just got hot at the right time.

Its all about whos playing hot in October. Thats why the Dbacks, Marlins and Cardinals won, and they all beat the teams everybody favored to win.

__________________

Dr. Giganto

Oh and one more thing Blade, I definitely agree with you that execution is a big part of it. If Beckett doesn't make his pitches, the Red Sox don't win, and if Ortiz and Manny dont hit like madmen, the Red Sox don't win. I think the Red Sox had a distinct advantage over all the teams in the playoffs except maybe the Indians, who shared the best record in baseball with them and took them to 7 games. And, that talent and ability to execute certainly helped push the Red Sox over the hump. I dont want to take anything away from them. They were the best team in baseball, and they played as such. And as a result, they were rewarded with a successful postseason and a World Series championship.

But it doesnt always work that way. Baseball's a really funny game, in that a game of such precision, so it's easy for fluky things to happen. Let's say Beckett makes a few perfect pitches ont he corners, but the Indians managed to slap them down the line, or poke them out there for bloop hits or whatever. Even though Beckett is executing near-perfect pitches, he could still lose the game. And stuff like that happens a LOT in baseball.

Basketball, on the other hand, is a game where each team gets so many possessions per game (probably close to 100, if not more) that to win you need a sustained effort over the course of so many possessions. Certain nights will be bad shooting nights, but for the most part, the better team wins, because each game is a long series of possessions that give a strong indication of which team is superior. That's why the best team in the NBA every year has a winning percentage above .700 (a 60-win team has a win % of .732), and the best team in baseball sometimes doesnt reach .600 (like this year...the Sox and Indians were .593). In basketball, the luck basically evens out within one ore two games...it can take weeks for luck to even out in baseball.

Football is similar. Each game is a collection of many many plays, both on offense, defense, and special teams. You can systematically wear down your opponents and display your dominance. There are obviously lucky plays that come into effect (fumbles, dropped passes, lucky bounces on punts/tipped passes, etc.). But for the most part, the team that wins is the one with the better players, better coaching, and better execution

__________________

Brandon

Does Vegas use the same logic when they put out lines for the NFL each week?

You're right about basketball and football although in football injuries come into play more then any other sport.. Lets use Carson Palmer a couple years ago as an example.. He got hurt on the 1st play of the game against the Steelers which just happened to be a huge pass play.. How do we know the Bengals couldn't have kept that up if Palmer doesn't get rolled on? Who knows.. injuries happen..

There usually aren't upsets in basketball which makes the Mavericks/Warriors series of last year even more SHOCKING..

This whole argument over luck in baseball leaves a lot to be desired for me. I don't disagree that their postseason is more of a crapshoot than the other sports, bit I like to think that if guys like Manny and Ortiz hit like they hit in the regular season and Beckett pitches like he pitched in the regular season.. more often than not the Sox are going to be in a winning position. I don't like the 5-game series at all but over the course of 7 games when you are guaranteed at least two games in your building you have at least 4 opportunities to correct a problem.. You hve to be pretty unlucky to lose 4 games because of bloop singles IMO.

Dr. Giganto

Yeah, but it's not always bloop singles, or hard-hit balls right at people...those are just the extreme cases. Guys go into slumps from time to time, and it's not always about poor mechanics, or nervousness or whatever. Sometimes they see the ball fine, their swing is fine, etc., and they just dont get hits. And sometimes it happens team-wide. Boston had a stretch of 9 games in mid June where they scored 2 or less runs in 7 games, and 8 out of 10 games. They had a stretch in April where they allowed 5 or more runs in 5 straight games. They had another stretch in May where they allowed 6 or more in 4 out of 6 games.

And it doesnt even need to be a situation where one team has a lot of unlucky breaks...what if like the entire series is a bunch of closely contested 1-run games? What if instead of losing Game 2 2-1, the Yankees had held on to win 2-1? Now they dont panic and pitch Wang on short rest in Game 4, and the total complexion of the series is changed.

What if Sabathia didnt shit the bed in Game 1 against Boston and pitched like the Cy Young candidate he was all season? What if Cleveland won a closely-contested Game 1, and then games 2-4 went exactly the same way...we'd be looking at a Cleveland sweep of the Red Sox (I know, you cant assume everything else would go exactly the same...I'm just saying)

Look at 2004, for that matter. The Yankees were three outs away from sweeping the Red Sox, with the greatest closer in history on the mound. If Roberts gets thrown out trying to steal second that's a Yankee sweep! And considering what we saw the rest of the series, we know that the difference in the quality of the two teams wasnt that great. But if the Yankees had held on and won that game, history would say that the 2004 Red Sox were just another typical Red Sox team that just couldnt get it done when it mattered most.

And yes, I know you can say that about other sports, but like I mentioned before, other sports aren't as reliant on luck. Think about it...1/4th of an inch location on the bat is the difference between a pop-up and a home run, between a line drive and a weak ground-ball, a ball up the middle or a foul ball on a late swing.

__________________

Brandon

Agreed, but what about a series that we all expect to be a sweep and it is.. We just say that the team had no chance right?

Going into the 2004 ALCS we all expected a 7-game series. You're right about how close it was to being a sweep..VERY close.. but wasn't the end result of the series what we all expected it to be from the beginning? Now.. nobody predicted that the Sox would be the 1st team to comeback from 3-0 obviously, but we expected it to be close.. Just like we expected the Yankees to win the world series in 2000 even after they lost something like 13 of their last 15 or whatever it was.. we still looked at the experience and how the Yankees don't get flustered in pressure situations, etc..

I understand what you're saying completely, I just like to believe that the best team wins the world series in more years than not.

I believe the Yankees were the best team in every year expect '96, same with the last two titles from the Sox.. but you're argument holds weight with the '03 Marlins or the '06 Cardinals. I think the White sox were the best team in 2005.