Are you guys more worried about....

[TC in Mississippi]

So If the Cubs lose, you'll always say the better team did not win?

In the NLDS? Yes, of course but that wouldn't mean the opponent wasn't the best team in a short series. The 162 game schedule determines the best teams. The playoffs, by way if s short sample size determine Championships. Entirely separate concepts.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Agreed. I'm really thinking Cubs-Red Sox in the WS and as a baseball fan that would be pure joy. Even more so if we win.

That would be a great matchup. I'd personally like to see the Cubs-Indians. Maybe Cleveland would have the opportunity to do an American Express commercial, too.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

So here's the caveat to the whole thing, the goal is not to be the best team it's to win Championships. In MLB that's winning the World Series so being the best team in baseball gives you a couple advantages, home field, not playing a 1 game playoff, etc. but that's it, a leg up in a tournament. Pretty much every baseball scout, broadcaster, coach or writer says that the 2001 Mariners were the best team they've ever seen play the game, and yet they didn't win and failed in their goal. Does that mean those guys didn't see what they saw?

 

[brett05]

In the NLDS? Yes, of course but that wouldn't mean the opponent wasn't the best team in a short series. The 162 game schedule determines the best teams. The playoffs, by way if s short sample size determine Championships. Entirely separate concepts.

Yet the best teams in the playoffs don't always win series 5 or 7.

So I agree it's different concepts but that doesn't mean necessarily that the better team doesn't win a playoff series or lose a series.

 

[Diehardfan]

The biggest difference between the regular season and playoffs is the brevity. 5 man rotations, resting players, bullpen use...that all goes out the window. You never worry about the next game, only the one you are playing. You do what you have to do to win that one game....then it starts all over in the next one. Maddon will ride his best players hard and that's the way it should be.

 

[brett05]

The pressure is immensely more as well.

 

[DanTown]

For clarity, would it be true for Cub Fans that they only way they lose in the NLDS is some sort of fluke instead of a team just being better than them at the time of play? I read that in some of the posts here, so I toss that idea out there.

The Cubs just lost three of three to the Brewers in Chicago while the Brewers played better baseball than the Cubs did.

Not a person alive would say that the Brewers are a better team than the Cubs.

The Cubs will be the better series in every single playoff series they play but just because you are better does not mean that you will play better than your opponent, especially in a sample as small as five or seven games.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

The biggest difference between the regular season and playoffs is the brevity. 5 man rotations, resting players, bullpen use...that all goes out the window. You never worry about the next game, only the one you are playing. You do what you have to do to win that one game....then it starts all over in the next one. Maddon will ride his best players hard and that's the way it should be.

Exactly, it's the same sport but a different game if that makes sense. A team that has 3 great starting pitchers and 2 poor BOR guys all of a sudden is on even footing with a team with 5 great starters. It changes how you manipulate lineups as well by de-emphasizing depth. Strategies become much different and the field is more level. All of this is about sample size.

 

[brett05]

The Cubs just lost three of three to the Brewers in Chicago while the Brewers played better baseball than the Cubs did.

Not a person alive would say that the Brewers are a better team than the Cubs.

The Cubs will be the better series in every single playoff series they play but just because you are better does not mean that you will play better than your opponent, especially in a sample as small as five or seven games.

Exactly, it's the same sport but a different game if that makes sense. A team that has 3 great starting pitchers and 2 poor BOR guys all of a sudden is on even footing with a team with 5 great starters. It changes how you manipulate lineups as well by de-emphasizing depth. Strategies become much different and the field is more level. All of this is about sample size.

No one would pick the Brewers. But the Brewers would never be in the playoffs so it's not a valid analogy.

Not only sample size tho. The bigger the sample, the less and less pressure there is. A team can be built to run rough-shot over teams in the regular season but may not be able to in the playoffs because of the shorten rosters that are needed so to speak.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

No one would pick the Brewers. But the Brewers would never be in the playoffs so it's not a valid analogy.

Not only sample size tho. The bigger the sample, the less and less pressure there is. A team can be built to run rough-shot over teams in the regular season but may not be able to in the playoffs because of the shorten rosters that are needed so to speak.

This is all a circular argument because the pressure you speak of is a result of sample size. The WC game is statistically equal to a coin flip and as such puts a lot of pressure on the teams without determining which team is better, just which team advances.

 

[brett05]

This is all a circular argument because the pressure you speak of is a result of sample size. The WC game is statistically equal to a coin flip and as such puts a lot of pressure on the teams without determining which team is better, just which team advances.

Circular argument? I don't see it. Can you explain it to me?

The pressure is a result of a win or go home style, not necessarily sample size the way I see it.

the Wild Card game is probably as much pressure as any playoff game because it's one and done.

Like we all agree, it's a different game come playoff time and the best team in the regular season may not be the best team in the playoffs.

 

[Diehardfan]

Exactly, it's the same sport but a different game if that makes sense. A team that has 3 great starting pitchers and 2 poor BOR guys all of a sudden is on even footing with a team with 5 great starters. It changes how you manipulate lineups as well by de-emphasizing depth. Strategies become much different and the field is more level. All of this is about sample size.

It's a long season, for sure. It's designed for not only the best but the deepest teams to make the playoffs. You are correct. Most teams need 5 good starters to get there but if you can somehow manage to make it with three...you're suddenly on even ground. Being a hot team is part of winning it all but it shouldn't be that surprising when a Wild Card team does well....in a lot of cases they've been fighting short handed all year just to get in and now it's all even.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Circular argument? I don't see it. Can you explain it to me?

The pressure is a result of a win or go home style, not necessarily sample size the way I see it.

the Wild Card game is probably as much pressure as any playoff game because it's one and done.

Like we all agree, it's a different game come playoff time and the best team in the regular season may not be the best team in the playoffs.

Because when you say "win or go home" you're essentially saying that there is no margin for error because of...wait for it...sample size. 1 game is the smallest sample size you can have and therefore is essentially a random event. Again the pressure is simply a result.

 

[brett05]

It's a long season, for sure. It's designed for not only the best but the deepest teams to make the playoffs. You are correct. Most teams need 5 good starters to get there but if you can somehow manage to make it with three...you're suddenly on even ground. Being a hot team is part of winning it all but it shouldn't be that surprising when a Wild Card team does well....in a lot of cases they've been fighting short handed all year just to get in and now it's all even.

Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way. Take this season. Given what the Dodgers have gone thru and than despite that gone on to do could in many ways make them the best team for the regular season despite not winning games at such dominant fashion as the Cubs have. But to the later point you bring out, yet it helps level the playing field a bit when you hit the Playoffs potentially.

 

[brett05]

Because when you say "win or go home" you're essentially saying that there is no margin for error because of...wait for it...sample size. 1 game is the smallest sample size you can have and therefore is essentially a random event. Again the pressure is simply a result.

I get it but sample size I don't think is getting used correctly. Sample size would be all teams that have say a 20 game winner should win the WC because the history shows it to be a favorite. A 1 game win or go home scenario is pressure filled not because of sample size because in the context the sample means nothing. Does that make sense or did I lose maybe even myself with that?

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I get it but sample size I don't think is getting used correctly. Sample size would be all teams that have say a 20 game winner should win the WC because the history shows it to be a favorite. A 1 game win or go home scenario is pressure filled not because of sample size because in the context the sample means nothing. Does that make sense or did I lose maybe even myself with that?

Yeah, I'm lost there. My basic premise is that a large sample size favors talent and a small sample size favors performance. If, back in the day, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen played each other 1 on 1MJ would probably win 15-18 times and yet in a 1 game match Scottie might have won with a superb performance. In no way would that have made Scottie a better player than MJ.

 

[anotheridiot]

The biggest difference between the regular season and playoffs is the brevity. 5 man rotations, resting players, bullpen use...that all goes out the window. You never worry about the next game, only the one you are playing. You do what you have to do to win that one game....then it starts all over in the next one. Maddon will ride his best players hard and that's the way it should be.

You cant have that mentality for 7 game series and Maddon knows that he will need pinch hitters that he prefers have some game time at bats. They wont be in any play in or wild card games, but he clearly knows his chances are better to win with Lester and Jake in great defensive games, which probably puts Bryant or Zobrist in left field and Javy at 2nd or 3rd. Middle of the year Javy was getting the starts at 3rd in Lester games. Kyle and Lackey games will probably see Soler in left and Zo and Bryant in the infield.

 

[brett05]

Yeah, I'm lost there. My basic premise is that a large sample size favors talent and a small sample size favors performance. If, back in the day, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen played each other 1 on 1MJ would probably win 15-18 times and yet in a 1 game match Scottie might have won with a superb performance. In no way would that have made Scottie a better player than MJ.

But what if Michael couldn't perform in the one and done format. That would mean in the example given that perhaps under pressure the better man did indeed win and would continue to do so. It would justify all the talk that happens in sports saying you need playoff experience.

 

[DanTown]

I get it but sample size I don't think is getting used correctly. Sample size would be all teams that have say a 20 game winner should win the WC because the history shows it to be a favorite. A 1 game win or go home scenario is pressure filled not because of sample size because in the context the sample means nothing. Does that make sense or did I lose maybe even myself with that?

Sample size means how many games determine who the best team is. Five or Seven games simply is not a large enough sample to make that proclamation. To prove this point, here is what the playoffs looked like on April 12th, when teams had played about seven games

AL
1. Baltimore vs winner of 4. Chicago vs 5. Detroit
2. New York Yankees vs 3. Texas Rangers

NL
1. Chicago vs winner of 4. Cincinnati vs 5. Pittsburgh
2. Washington vs 3. San Francisco

Clearly a sample of seven does not offer the same accuracy as a sample of 162 at determining who the better team is.

Also, being a good team for 162 games is completely different than being a good playoff team in a seven game series. Classic example of that: the 01 Diamonbacks went 51-18 when Johnson/Schilling started and only 49-52 when they didn't. They went 9-2 in the WS when Schilling/Johnson started and 2-5 when they didn't. The ability to use high value pitchers in situations in the playoffs changes how good teams are. The Diamondbacks were a "92 win" team in the regular season but in the playoffs, they're almost impossible to beat.

Think of the Cubs and Chapman. In the regular season, you have to worry about multiple innings or multiple days in a row but in the playoffs, you get so many rest/travel days that your bullpen can just be maxed out every single game in a way a regular season game you cannot.

 

[DanTown]

But what if Michael couldn't perform in the one and done format. That would mean in the example given that perhaps under pressure the better man did indeed win and would continue to do so. It would justify all the talk that happens in sports saying you need playoff experience.

You cannot take any significance from a sample of one since you cannot compare the results to anything else to prove anything.