Do the Playoffs determine the best team?

[Josh W]

I've had this debate with people a few times, and am preparing to have it again.

Do the baseball playoffs accurately determine who is the best team? Put another way, is the winner of the world series the best team?

(I think, no. The clearest example, to me, is in 2001 when DBacks beat a better NYY team).

[Clarkmeister]

See, I think the Yankees were not only clearly inferior to that Diamondbacks team (two total miracle games - they really should've lost like 6 games to 1 in that series) but I think they weren't even the best American League team. IIRC, my opinion isn't in the miniority either, I seem to recall even Yankee fans being pleasantly surprised at their run that year, but I could be mistaken.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
See, I think the Yankees were not only clearly inferior to that Diamondbacks team (two total miracle games - they really should've lost like 6 games to 1 in that series) but I think they weren't even the best American League team. IIRC, my opinion isn't in the miniority either, I seem to recall even Yankee fans being pleasantly surprised at their run that year, but I could be mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, there's no doubt that they (Yanks) were outplayed in the series. They were a few BYK meltdowns away from being embarassed.

And, shoot, I'm a diehard Mariners fan. I know that the Yanks weren't the best AL team that year...

It's just that ARI had the 3rd best NL record that year, and the 6th best overall. Sure, when RJ and Schill pitched, they were dominant. But I'm unable to say that they were the best team in 2001.

J

[craig r]

If the Padres get lucky, I would have a hard time saying they were the best team. In fact, I would be lying if I said they were.

craig

[andyfox]

Depends on how you define "best."

If best means winning the World Series, yes, by definition your team is the best. That, after all, is every team's goal.

The best way to win the World Series, is to win the most games you can. So the team that wins the most games can also be defined as the best team. I think only one time in the last eleven years (Yankees, 1998) has the team that won the most games won the World Series.

In order to win games, you have to score more runs than the other team. Some people look at the run differential between scored and allowed to ascertain the true "bestness" of a team. I believe Bill James did the first work on this.

I guess we define our great teams as those that won a lot of games, had a big runs scored/runs allowed differential, and also won the World Series. The 1927 and 1998 Yankees are probably the two most famous examples. The 1906 Cubs (116-36) and the 1954 Indians (111-43) are probably the two most famous examples of teams that won a lot but got schmottered in the Series.

In a 7 game series the best team always wins. Thats quoted by every former baseball and basketball player in history. Of course injuries can screw it up,

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
In a 7 game series the best team always wins. Thats quoted by every former baseball and basketball player in history. Of course injuries can screw it up,

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, give me 5 quotes for each sport.

[Mvcode3]

GIVE HIM THE CLAMPS

[webmonarch]

The answer is "Much less than 100%" because the teams in the playoffs only use 3/5 of their starting rotation. If you want to see a good playoff series, make every team have five different starting pitchers before the #1 & 2 guys are used again.

Of course, outside of the oversaturated BoSox/Yankee corridor, most of the country has moved on to the superior sport and league by now, so the number of people caring is as low as ever.

I sure don't.

[Hal 2000]

[ QUOTE ]
In a 7 game series the best team always wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even remotely true.

'60 Yankees lost to Pirates
'90 Athletics lost to Reds

Plenty more examples from other LCS and WS, but I'm going to bed. No time to delve.

[tdarko]

is this poll/thread serious?

are we really suggesting that the best team doesn't win?

You guys must realize theres a difference between most talent and best team, most talent doesnt always win, best team does.
The team with the most talent has the best chance to have the best team of course but it doesnt always work out that way.

[Josh W]

My contention is more of sample size. In 2001, the mariners dominated the league. In fact, I believe (just going from memory here), they had a winning record vs. every team in the league. Now, they got beat in the playoffs 4-1 or 4-2 to NYY.

So, even though Seattle was clearly the better team (better record, better head-to-head record, better record vs. common opposition, etc), they lost in the playoffs. The M's were the best team, and had the most talent.

But they lost in the playoffs because of sample size. Like the thread that suggests "winning by 2" in the world series...a larger sample in the playoffs would do better to determine the actual 'best team'. however, the publics desire for crowning a champion within a set timeframe dictates a playoff format like we currently have.

And that format means that often the best team is not crowned the champion.

Josh

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is more of sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Warning: gross oversimplification ahead)

For the sake of argument, say we pick one team at the end of the regular season and decide it's "best". If that team has a set probability of winning each of its playoff games, that probability has to be about 68% before that team's going to win the WS 60% of the time. (They'd win each individual series 85% of the time.) A team that's a 55/45 favorite is 61% to win each series, and will win the WS around 22% of the time. A 60/40 favorite is 71% to win each series, and will win the WS 36% of the time. 75/25 gives you 93% and 80%, and 80/20 gives you 97% and 90%.

So it seems pretty clear to me that if we're going to answer anything but <60% in this poll, we're going to have to define "best" in large part based on postseason success. And the sample size for that sucks.

The numbers are from the binomial distribution calculator here (http://ic.net/~jnbohr/java/CdfDemoMain.html).

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
is this poll/thread serious?

are we really suggesting that the best team doesn't win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we're suggesting that the best team doesn't win. Why doesn't the best team go 162-0 this year? Because they occasionally lose games. Why did the Yankees go 4-100 against the Devil Rays this year. If you say because TB was the better team I'm going to pimpslap you.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, outside of the oversaturated BoSox/Yankee corridor, most of the country has moved on to the superior sport and league by now, so the number of people caring is as low as ever.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Tons more people are still watching baseball than watch NHL hockey.

How do you define "best"? Total aggregate of talent? Won-loss record over a ton of games?

I guess I've always taken it as a given that an inferior team could steal a series, if they were hot while the better team wasn't...but couldn't one make an argument that the true test of a teams' worth is how it performs against the best when the chips are down, not how it beats up the weak sisters of the league during games in June/July?

I don't know if I'd make the argument, just throwing it out there. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. In Hockey, inferior teams steal series all the time due to one hot goaltender. Makes it interesting.

[Salva135]

I favor the Jamesian theory that the best teams get to the playoffs by consistent success over the course of the regular season, but the playoffs are, in essence, a crapshoot. The team that played the best during those particular games and got the luckiest will win.

It's somewhat comparable to poker tournament -- you see the best players consistently making it deep into the money, but the player that wins it all is almost always the one who had the luckiest run at just the right time. The turn of a card, and you have a completely different winner. Likewise in sports.

[J.R.]

why do you assume that the best team over the past 6 months is the best team today? We all realize rosters change, older players may tire, younger players get experience, guys get hurt or get healthy, chemistry may fester or grow. Schedules are unbalanced. One team may have a star or 2 out when team A plays them, while team B plays them when the stars are healthy. Teams may be hot or cold. The white sox have the best record, but many would argue the indians are probably the better team right now as evidenced by their play over the second half. The yankees are clearly better than they were in may when they dug themselves into a hole- giambi is worlds better; small and chacon weren't on the roster. regular season success has a lot to do with day-in and day-out mental toughness, battling a grind. playoff baseball is the opposite.

We also know that regular season baseball and the playoffs aren't, in some respects, really the same game. Doesn't regular season baseball place a premium on things that are less significant in the playoffs, and vice versa? A bullpen, top to bottom, is more important over the course of a season than in a short postseason series. A dominant closer and setup guy, while always important, may be moreso in the playoffs.

A couple of dominant starting pitchers, ala the 2001 d'backs, while always important, has a much more pronounced effect in a playoff series than over the course of a regular season, where depth through all 5 starters may be more significant. Bench depth is less important in a playoff series, especially in american league parks. Managing (and over managing), given the time to prepare for a playoff series could be more significant.

There are more days off than during the regular season, as well as day/days off leading into the playoffs, so mental and physcial stamina is perhaps less important in the playoffs while the ability to psych oneself up for the immediate momment is mroe important in the playoffs (remeber jose lima and all those smelling salt capsules v. the cards last year).

Who wins today isn't independent of who won yesterday, and this may be magnified in a short series as momemtum, pressure and emotions matter more in a short playoff series, given the media focus and significant of the event etc. The team with the better regular season record often bears the brunt of the pressure. Can't experience, expecially playoff experience, have an effect too. But variance is also a factor.

Since divisional play began in 1969, the eight teams that have won the World Series after posting the best regular-season record are the 1970 Orioles, 1975-76 Reds, 1978 Yankees, 1984 Tigers, 1986 Mets, 1989 Athletics, and 1998 Yankees.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
In a 7 game series the best team always wins. Thats quoted by every former baseball and basketball player in history. Of course injuries can screw it up,

[/ QUOTE ]

So if there's a game 7, the best team will always win it? Why not just play game 7 first?

[Clarkmeister]

First, I agree that the best team doesn't always win. However, you seem to have a definition of "best" that equates to the entire season. I don't consider that definition to be that broad.

[Toro]

Depends on how you define best team. A team can be built to be the best for the long grind of a 162 game season like the Yankees were in 2004. But the Red Sox, with the bookend aces were built to win in the playoffs.

I think any team that has 2 great starting pitchers and a good to great closer can win in the playoffs even if they have mediocre to bad #3 thru #5 starters. The trick is you have to win enough of the 162 games with those bad 3 to 5 starters to get there.

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
is this poll/thread serious?

are we really suggesting that the best team doesn't win?

[/ QUOTE ]

The best team doesn't always win.

If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

Think of it this way, if the best team always won, then the best team in every sport would always go undefeated and the worst team in every sport would always go winless.

[nyc999]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on how you define best team. A team can be built to be the best for the long grind of a 162 game season like the Yankees were in 2004. But the Red Sox, with the bookend aces were built to win in the playoffs.

I think any team that has 2 great starting pitchers and a good to great closer can win in the playoffs even if they have mediocre to bad #3 thru #5 starters. The trick is you have to win enough of the 162 games with those bad 3 to 5 starters to get there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree -- and you don't need a great team overall if you have Schilling/Johnson starting 5 games out of a 7 game series. You can even overcome having an abysmal closer.

[andyfox]

Arizona in 2001 is a good example of what you are saying. Schilling and Johnson were the team. Thus, in a short series, they were awfully tough to beat.

I think Josh's point is cogent. Seven games is too small a sample size to determine the best team. The better record over 162 games seems a better test of "bestness.

Of course, in the Al this year, there are five teams within a few games of each other. Pretty hard to say which of them is the best, no matter who wins the Series.

[Dudd]

I think it's pretty clear that the best team wins less than 60% of the time. Let's assume that the better team wins 70% of the time in a 5 game series, and 80% of the time in a 7 game series. I think that's pretty generous, given that even the best team in baseball history only won 73% of their games over a 162 game schedule, and the teams in the playoffs are markedly better on average. Anyways, simple math shows that the probability of the best team winning is .7*.8*.8, or only 45% of the time, and that's with fairly high win percentages in any one series.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you assume that the best team over the past 6 months is the best team today?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read your entire response yet just do to other obligations, but wanted to throw something out quickly regarding this, your first sentence.

It's not so much 'me' that assumes the "best team over the past 6 months", it's everybody. When a team win the World Series, on say November 2nd, the announcers don't say "The New York Yankees, your November 2nd champions", they say "The New York Yankeese, your 1998 champions".

I mean, it could be argued that two days ago, the best team in baseball was Baltimore. They scored 17 runs vs. a good Yankee team. However, I don't think anybody (yourself excluded because of the avatar!!) would say they are the best team this year.

The playoffs and world series are the culmination of the year. Yeah, teams change throughout a season, as do playing/coaching strategies. But the world series winner is the champion for that YEAR, not just for that day or week.

Josh

(With that long, rambling response, I guess I could/should just read your post...)

[Soul Daddy]

In our culture a champion is not a measurement who the best team has been for an entire season. The regular season in any sport should be looked at for what it is: A very long qualifying event.

[BreakfastBurrito]

If the best team always won wouldn't that take pretty much all the fun out of being a sports fan?

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume that the better team wins 70% of the time in a 5 game series, and 80% of the time in a 7 game series.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are thoroughly ludicrous assumptions. For 2 "winning" teams anything over 55% is ridiculous as talent gaps aren't so dominant.

[Voltron87]

this thread makes baby jesus cry.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume that the better team wins 70% of the time in a 5 game series, and 80% of the time in a 7 game series.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are thoroughly ludicrous assumptions. For 2 "winning" teams anything over 55% is ridiculous as talent gaps aren't so dominant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he knows that. His point was that even under extreme assumptions it's still <60%.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
The better record over 162 games seems a better test of "bestness.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that assessment. Look at the NBA last season. The Phoenix Suns were the best team in the league at beating up on shitty opponents. But would anyway who watched the Spurs-Suns series and how diametrically opposite those two teams played in the 4th quarter with the game on the line possibly say that the Suns were the superior team? Also, in the Lakers second championship season with Shaq and Kobe, I believe they were the second seed going into the playoffs. Yet they went 15-1 on their way to the title, losing only to a superhuman performance by Allen Iverson. No way they weren't the best team that year.

Even though all my examples pertain to basketball, they can be applied to MLB. The regular season is played against all teams, including all the shitty ones. The teams that win the World Series usually match up the best against the other best teams, not just the shitty ones.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The better record over 162 games seems a better test of "bestness.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that assessment. Look at the NBA last season. The Phoenix Suns were the best team in the league at beating up on shitty opponents. But would anyway who watched the Spurs-Suns series and how diametrically opposite those two teams played in the 4th quarter with the game on the line possibly say that the Suns were the superior team? Also, in the Lakers second championship season with Shaq and Kobe, I believe they were the second seed going into the playoffs. Yet they went 15-1 on their way to the title, losing only to a superhuman performance by Allen Iverson. No way they weren't the best team that year.

Even though all my examples pertain to basketball, they can be applied to MLB. The regular season is played against all teams, including all the shitty ones. The teams that win the World Series usually match up the best against the other best teams, not just the shitty ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this applies at all to baseball. In fact, I think "matchups" are almost completely irrelevant.

Any hockey fan should vote less than 60%.

[Josh W]

Not only that, but in his examples, he's vastly over looking critical injuries. For example, if Joe Johnson plays vs SA, SA struggles greatly. When the Lakers were the 2nd seed, I believe, they missed Shaq for a healthy chunk of the season.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Any hockey fan should vote less than 60%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, hockey is interesting. Because one player can dominate sooo much in hockey (the goalie), really anything can happen. However, with the re-seeding after every round of the playoffs, the system works against the underdogs.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The better record over 162 games seems a better test of "bestness.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that assessment. Look at the NBA last season. The Phoenix Suns were the best team in the league at beating up on shitty opponents. But would anyway who watched the Spurs-Suns series and how diametrically opposite those two teams played in the 4th quarter with the game on the line possibly say that the Suns were the superior team? Also, in the Lakers second championship season with Shaq and Kobe, I believe they were the second seed going into the playoffs. Yet they went 15-1 on their way to the title, losing only to a superhuman performance by Allen Iverson. No way they weren't the best team that year.

Even though all my examples pertain to basketball, they can be applied to MLB. The regular season is played against all teams, including all the shitty ones. The teams that win the World Series usually match up the best against the other best teams, not just the shitty ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this applies at all to baseball. In fact, I think "matchups" are almost completely irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus, of the 4 major sports (I'll keep the NHL in for the sake of argument) the NBA has highest % of "best team winning the playoffs".

NBA
NFL
MLB
NHL (MLB and NHL are close though)