Playoff Fairness

[RacersEdge]

Assuming the point of the playoffs in professional sports is designed to determine the best team in that sport, which sports do you think are the most legitimate in saying that the champion is the best team?

10 = almost guaranteed the champion is the best team in that sport

1 = completely random - all teams in the playoffs have the same chance to be the final champion.

[tbach24]

2, 8, 8, i dont know

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
2, 8, 8, i dont know

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell do you put the NFL (single game playoff) higher than MLB (5 & 7 games series)

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
2, 8, 8, i dont know

[/ QUOTE ]

How on Earth can you rate the NFL above the MLB?

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2, 8, 8, i dont know

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell do you put the NFL (single game playoff) higher than MLB (5 & 7 games series)

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to consider the nature of the game too - not just number of games played. One football game carries a lot more weight than one baseball game.

[Phoenix1010]

Care to explain how the nature of a football game makes it less likely that a few lucky plays (or a gamelong off-performance by a few players on either team) will turn the tide of a game and allow the worst team to win? "Carries a lot more weight" just doesn't do it for me.

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2, 8, 8, i dont know

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell do you put the NFL (single game playoff) higher than MLB (5 & 7 games series)

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to consider the nature of the game too - not just number of games played. One football game carries a lot more weight than one baseball game.

[/ QUOTE ]

only because there are fewer football games. this is nonsense.

a playoff series is absolutely more likely to determine the true better team. this is simply an arguement of short term vs. long term. the more trials the less likely luck is to be the determining factor.

[RacersEdge]

You will just have to trust me...






Put it this way, what's more likely - the Devil Ray's take 2/3 from the Red Sox in Boston - or a lousy NFL team like the Bears goes to NE and beats the Patriots?

[ThaSaltCracka]

you don't know much about probability, do you?

[tbach24]

Obviously because the Pats win every year /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[wh1t3bread]

Apples to Oranges.

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
you don't know much about probability, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably much more than you.. /images/graemlins/wink.gif


The required sample size is a function of the underlying variability of the process and the closeness of the quality of teams playing. So a baseball team playing .550 ball versus a baseball team playing .600 ball woul require a lot more games than 7 to determine who is better. In footaball, a lot of times it's a 14-2 (.850) team versus a 10-6 (.625) - a much bigger gap.

Plus, a baseball team has much more variability involved - just look at how the pitcher changes from game to game - much different than football.

This is what I mean by nature of the game.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
The required sample size is a function of the underlying variability of the process and the closeness of the quality of teams playing. So a baseball team playing .550 ball versus a baseball team playing .600 ball woul require a lot more games than 7 to determine who is better. In footaball, a lot of times it's a 14-2 (.850) team versus a 10-6 (.625) - a much bigger gap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refuse to believe that you are serious about this as an explanation.

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The required sample size is a function of the underlying variability of the process and the closeness of the quality of teams playing. So a baseball team playing .550 ball versus a baseball team playing .600 ball woul require a lot more games than 7 to determine who is better. In footaball, a lot of times it's a 14-2 (.850) team versus a 10-6 (.625) - a much bigger gap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refuse to believe that you are serious about this as an explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you want a more detailed explanation, pick up a stats book and look at hypothesis testing.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
you don't know much about probability, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um.

He and Teddy are right, for a few reasons.

1) Home field advantage is worht a lot more in the NFL than it is in baseball. Better teams almost always have HFA.
2) The NFL is more physically grueling, and the teams with byes in the first round have a huge leg up on those that play the first round.
3) The spread of talent among playoff teams is actually larger in the NFL. In the MLB, a dominant team wins 60% of their games. Last year, Pittsburgh won 94% of their games.
4) Baseball, even in a short series, has a lot more luck involved in it than an NFl or NBA game. Baseball is like playing poker... Football is like playing chess.

[sublime]

Baseball is like playing poker... Football is like playing chess.

i have a man crush on jack and manny ramirez. i dont care who knows it.

who is teddy btw?

[Jack of Arcades]

tbach24

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
Baseball is like playing poker... Football is like playing chess.

i have a man crush on jack and manny ramirez. i dont care who knows it.

who is teddy btw?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't need to call it a "man crush". A "crush" would have sufficed. But, keep your hands off Manny..he is spoken for. Also, I don't know about Jack. But, based on his music selections and knowledge of baseball I think you guys would make a cute couple /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

craig

[Non_Comformist]

Jack has spoken. I defer to him.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Home field advantage is worht a lot more in the NFL than it is in baseball. Better teams almost always have HFA.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A big part of the idea of "playoff fairness" is to ensure that huge edges like this aren't given to either team. The regular season should not determine the playoffs. If there was a rule that the team with the worse regular season record had to play blindfolded, would that make it more fair because the better team usually has the better record? If you're going to give out big time advantages based on regular season records, there is no reason to have playoffs at all. The fact that the team with the better regular season record gets such a huge advantage is a big reason why single game elimination playoffs are so unfair.


[ QUOTE ]
2) The NFL is more physically grueling, and the teams with byes in the first round have a huge leg up on those that play the first round.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above.

[ QUOTE ]
3) The spread of talent among playoff teams is actually larger in the NFL. In the MLB, a dominant team wins 60% of their games. Last year, Pittsburgh won 94% of their games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample size? I don't understand why I even have to bring this up. If it was possible for the NFL to play a 162 game season, do you really think a team would win 94%? I'm not sure what you mean by "spread of talent" either. Do you mean difference in win percentages among playoff teams? Last year the NFL had three teams with 81%, 88%, and 94%. You can't say it's a huge spread when 1 game knocks you down 7 percentage points. Trying to argue statistics when your sample size is 16 makes no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Baseball, even in a short series, has a lot more luck involved in it than an NFl or NBA game. Baseball is like playing poker... Football is like playing chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. It's debatable whether this factor is enough to cancel out the much larger sample size that baseball playoff series offer than football games. It also points out how silly it is that Tbach gave the NFL and NBA equal scores.

[Voltron87]

NBA 9
MLB 8
NFL 6.5

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
No. A big part of the idea of "playoff fairness" is to ensure that huge edges like this aren't given to either team. The regular season should not determine the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are now just using a different definition of "playoff fairness" than the original poster, and thus addressing a different question. His question is really not about fairness at all, but about in which sport the best teams are most likely to win.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by "spread of talent" either. Do you mean difference in win percentages among playoff teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is simply that some teams tend to be more heavily favored over other teams in football, because the difference in their abilities is that much greater. If you really doubt this, just compare the odds to win baseball playoff series set by sportsbooks with those to win football playoff games. It is fairly uncommon for a baseball team to be more than a 2:1 dog, and probably rightly so. In contrast, football teams are often bigger dogs.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
No. A big part of the idea of "playoff fairness" is to ensure that huge edges like this aren't given to either team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you disagree with what I say, or do you say it shouldn't be that way?

[ QUOTE ]
Sample size? I don't understand why I even have to bring this up. If it was possible for the NFL to play a 162 game season, do you really think a team would win 94%?

[/ QUOTE ]

Increase the sample size, then. The 49ers from 1983 to 1998 won 75% of their 192 games. From 1991-1996, the Cowboys went 70-26 (73%).

It's obviously hard to do this now with so much roster turnover nowadays

[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean difference in win percentages among playoff teams? Last year the NFL had three teams with 81%, 88%, and 94%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, but, to go along with those three times, you had the Vikings, Rams, and Seahawks that were a combined 1 game over .500. Combined with HFA and byes, the Vikings had virtually no chance of winning the superbowl.

Since 1978, when the wild card game was introducedsonly 3 teams that have played in the first round have won the Super Bowl. Their records were 12-4-, 12-4, and 11-5.

The NFL playoff system heavily favors the best teams.

[Phoenix1010]

What you and Jack, and perhaps the OP are saying is that the best team will usually have the best regular season record, and the fact that they're favored in the playoffs means that "the best team is most likely to win." What I'm saying is that the best way to find out which team is better is to have them play against each other in a fair series. The best team doesn't always have the best record. The Spurs were better than the Suns, The Patriots were better than the Steelers, and the Redsox were better than the Yankees. That's why the champion isn't decided by regular season records, there is a playoff tournament.

You're saying "the NFL playoff system heavily favors the teams with the best regular season record." I'm saying "a fair and long playoff series heavily favors the better team."

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying "the NFL playoff system heavily favors the teams with the best regular season record." I'm saying "a fair and long playoff series heavily favors the better team."

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying isn't that complicated: Entering the playoffs, the best football team is more likely to win the Superbowl than the best baseball team is to win the World Series.

One of the reasons is that the best teams tend to get a bye and have home field for at least one game and often two. This might not be fair as you see it, but it sure helps them.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
What you and Jack, and perhaps the OP are saying is that the best team will usually have the best regular season record, and the fact that they're favored in the playoffs means that "the best team is most likely to win." What I'm saying is that the best way to find out which team is better is to have them play against each other in a fair series. The best team doesn't always have the best record. The Spurs were better than the Suns, The Patriots were better than the Steelers, and the Redsox were better than the Yankees. That's why the champion isn't decided by regular season records, there is a playoff tournament.

You're saying "the NFL playoff system heavily favors the teams with the best regular season record." I'm saying "a fair and long playoff series heavily favors the better team."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sure. But MLB surely doesn't have a long playoff series.

[DougOzzzz]

I did the math and according to my calculations, the typical favorite in the NFL should win 67% of playoff series, vs. 62% for the typical MLB favorite.

However, I'm not really sure this comparison is fair.

You could argue that while the NFL playoffs crowns the best team more often, the MLB playoffs is less likely to churn out a truly disgraceful champion.

Seriously, in the MLB, about the worst case scenario is that a team 10% worse than the best ends up being champion. In the NFL, this could balloon to 20% or more. The Pats of 01-02 are a good example. When was the last time a champion was so much worse than the best team in the MLB as the Pats were that year?

[Dynasty]

It's ammusing that the NBA and NHL have such different results in this poll considering their regular season and playoff structure is nearly identical.

[Josh W]

The reason I gave them different values is because doesn't the NHL re-seed after every round? i.e. if #1 beats #8, and #6 beats #3, then 1 seed will play the 6 seed in the second round instead of the 4 or 5.

For this reason, I think the NBA is better. If the #2 team is slightly better than the #1 seed, but has a lower seed because of regular season injuries or suspensions (or a late season trade that didn't move then all the way up to #1), the #1 seed will be protected the whole way through the playoffs in the NHL.

Josh

[NoOuts]

As an avid hockey fan, I rated the nhl as more random because of the ability of a hot goaltender to carry a team. In no other sport can a single individual make such an impact on a series or playoff year.

[joecash]

Baseball has the most luck involved. Look at all the wildcards that have won the world series.

[cognito20]

For my money, the fairest playoff system in professional team sports is one that has not been mentioned, since we've been sticking to American sports....the playoff system in European, specifically English Premiership, soccer. Simply, their playoff system is not to have a playoff at all. The 20 teams play a 38-game regular season, home and away against every other team. 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. Team with the most points at the end of the 38 games is the champion. (If teams are tied in points, the first tiebreaker is total goal differential, second tiebreaker total goals scored.) End of story. The team that played the best that season ALWAYS wins. 10 on the scale of the poll.

Their knockout "playoff" system, if you can call it that, is known as the FA Cup. Every professional and semi-professional team in England, as well as quite a few amateur teams, are entered in a blind-draw, single-elimination knockout format, home team selected randomly (and if the match ends in a tie, it's replayed at the -other- team's home stadium). Winners advance, losers go home. The higher-level professional teams are seeded into a later stage of the competition so that they only need to win 6 matches to win the Cup, but that's the only advantage they're given, while a team full of amateurs from the local pub would have to start from the pre-preliminary rounds and win 15+. These FA Cup games, while being the closest thing to the American "playoff" system, are completely separate from the league format described above. The team that has the most points in the Premier League is the "champion", while the winner of the FA Cup (who doesn't even need to be from the highest league....a team from the #2 division got all the way to the Cup Final before losing to Manchester United in 2004, and 2 teams from the #2 division WON the Cup in the 1970s, Sunderland in '71 and West Ham in '79) is just the "winner of the FA Cup", although that is quite a prestigious honor in its own right.

[DougOzzzz]

Yes the playoffs are really a poor way of determining a champion, compared to regular season results (assuming balanced schedules, i.e., each team plays each other team a set number of times).

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes the playoffs are really a poor way of determining a champion, compared to regular season results (assuming balanced schedules, i.e., each team plays each other team a set number of times).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but then we wouldn't be talking about clutch players or Mystique and Aura.

[battschr]

If you are ranking these by how often the best team wins the final.... the nfl and nba are close for first, with baseball way behind...don't know about any other sports.

[pokerdirty]

98-99 Knicks, made the finals as the 8 seed. and you are trying to tell me that they established themselves as the best team in the east that year? No, it's only a matter of getting hot late in the season, and no falling victim to injury.

At least baseball is more selective in who they actually let into the playoffs (Division winners + the team with the best record that did not win their division, often better than at least one of the division winners).

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]

Put it this way, what's more likely - the Devil Ray's take 2/3 from the Red Sox in Boston - or a lousy NFL team like the Bears goes to NE and beats the Patriots?

[/ QUOTE ]

That answer is pretty obvious and I find it astounding that everybody is arguing with you, personally.