Several factors may explain why the “best” team doesn’t always win.
For one thing, the level of competition matters. If a team racks up 100+ wins in a weak division, that might not be better than a team that wins maybe 92 games in a competitive division, so the strength of schedule is an important consideration.
Another factor is when the team went on its winning streaks. More specifically, how has the team performed after the All-Star break and trading deadlines. Teams that jump out to be leads and then go a little over .500 the final 6 weeks may not be as good relative to the competition as they were earlier in the year. A team that overcomes injuries and gets a good acquisition or two and then goes .600+ down the stretch is a better bet to go further in the post-season.
And then there’s injuries, and just regular wear and tear. If a team gets injuries to key players in late September or early October, then they’re not going to be the same team that won 100+ games during the year.
The addition of Buehler is big too. Yes, Kershaw might actually pitch better without having the weight of being the ace. But for Kershaw in the postseason, that isn’t saying much. But if Kershaw can pitch like he’s fully capable of, and if Ryu, Buehler, and Hill deliver, then you won’t see much of their bullpen and they could well go all the way…
I know that seems like it should be true, but it’s not. There is no correlation between late season improvement and playoff performance.
If we go by after the trading deadline (so Aug 1 onwards) here are the winning percentages of World Series champions since the three-round system started in 1995 as compared to their overall winning percentage:
1995 Atlanta Braves: .614 (worse than overall .625)
1996 New York Yankees: .491 (worse than overall .568)
1997 Florida Marlins: .553 (worse than overall .568)
1998 New York Yankees: .664 (worse than overall .704)
1999 New York Yankees: .596 (worse than overall .605)
2000 New York Yankees: .508 (worse than overall .544)
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks: .571 (better than overall .568)
2002 Anaheim Angels: .643 (better than overall .611)
2003 Florida Marlins: .593 (better than overall .562)
2004 Boston Red Sox: .700 (better than overall .604)
2005 Chicago White Sox: .525 (worse than overall .611)
2006 St. Louis Cardinals: .439 (worse than overall .516)
2007 Boston Red Sox: .571 (worse than overall .593)
2008 Philadelphia Phillies: .611 (better than overall .568)
2009 New York Yankees: .695 (better than overall .636)
2010 San Francisco Giants: .561 (worse than overall .568)
2011 St. Louis Cardinals: .611 (better than overall .555)
2012 San Francisco Giants: .644 (better than overall .580)
2013 Boston Red Sox: .604 (better than overall .599)
2014 San Francisco Giants: .547 (better than overall .543)
2015 Kansas City Royals: .567 (worse than overall .586)
2016 Chicago Cubs: .702 (better than overall .640)
2017 Houston Astros: .561 (worse than overall .623)
So of 23 World Series champs that had to win at least 11 playoff games, 12 actually did worse after the trading deadline than they did before. The 2006 Cardinals were hideously bad down the stretch. I had a look at some random WS winners during the two-round system and my honest impression is, same thing. It appears to be totally irrelevant either way.
I know this is weird and quite counterintuitive, but it’s true. (I have read a few other articles, approaching it with more rigor than my post, that came to the same conclusion.)
The reason the team with the best record doesn’t usually win is simply that it’s unlikely to happen. If you have to survive three rounds of playoffs, you are probably not going to win, full stop. It doesn’t matter how good you are; there is a better chance of not winning three playoff rounds than winning three playoff rounds. There are no bad teams in the playoffs; a 102-60 team looks great, but there is still a pretty good chance they will lose a playoff series to any team with a winning record. If you assume a terrific team has a 70% chance of winning a series against any playoff opponent - which I consider a very generous assumption - that only gives them a 34% chance of winning it all.
As a Cardinals fan who remembers 2006 quite well, I can tell you that I remember them backing into the playoffs that years, stumbling drunk into the playoffs that year - barely escaping a late-season push by Houston.
I also told a buddy of mine that, in spite of all that, the NL was wide open and that the Cardinals had at least a fighting chance, mainly because the Padres were average and the Mets - the head and shoulders best team in the NL that year - lost Pedro Martinez late. So it’s not only about what happens to teams like the Cardinals.
But to your point - and I concede your stats are solid, RickJay - I think sometimes teams just perform. The Cards were a team that had been to the postseason the previous 2 years. Unlike 2004, their starters were healthy, and their ace, Chris Carpenter, was hitting his stride. The wildcards were Jeff Suppan and Jeff Weaver - nobody had any idea how they’d hold up. They also called up Adam Wainwright as a reliever (he’s been a starter since 2007), which kinda speaks to my point: the late-season call-ups…nobody knows how they’re going to perform. Championship teams often literally come together those last 30-45 days. I don’t know if stats necessarily prove or disprove a position on this.
It wouldn’t hurt for Boston and New York to go a full five games and play extra innings in all of them so that they show up to the ALCS with a blown up rotation and a worn out bullpen.
Umpire Angel Hernandez has had three calls overturned by review in the past two games…and it’s only the third inning. I’m pretty sure he’s a terrible ump with no business being in the postseason, but all three plays were bang bang, to be fair.
I haven’t checked the stats in a while, but one thing I usually look at is plain ole runs scored and runs against. Dodgers and Stros do well in that category if my memory ain’t faulty.
The Yankees have an offensive machine, which is why they’re tricky in a five-game series, but their pitching, which was supposed to be bolstered by Sonny Gray, is a liability against an explosive lineup like Boston.
