Baseball Musings: Leitch on Sample Size

October 18, 2006

Leitch on Sample Size

Will Leitch of Deadspin pens an editorial in the New York Times:

Much is written by statistical analysts about "sample size" in baseball, and the playoffs are the most extreme example. If the Royals, one of the worst teams in baseball, played the American League champion Detroit Tigers in a 10-game postseason series, they'd win at least 3 -- probably more. A bad team beating a good team is not particularly difficult, or unusual. Yankees fans can take some solace in this. The Yankees were an outstanding team this year. In the playoffs, though, they ran into three Tigers pitchers who pitched dominant games those particular days. The Yankees didn't lose because A-Rod wasn't "clutch" or because Joe Torre forgot how to manage a baseball team or because the Tigers had more "heart." They lost because the Tigers happened to win three games in a row.
It happens all the time during the regular season. We just don't notice. Sportswriters say the Tigers "got hot at the right time," but they weren't saying that one week earlier, when they lost three at home to the Royals to end the season. Did the Royals just have more heart?

The Cardinals are on the cusp of the World Series, and if they win it, no one will care about September losing streaks. (I know I won't.) The World Series does not establish the best team; it just compacts 162 games into seven or so frenzied ones. This lottery nature is what makes it so exciting. Ya gotta believe, because you never know when your number's coming up.

The Mets hope their number is the better one tonight.

Posted by David Pinto at 05:09 PM | Post Season | TrackBack (0)

Comments

I'd have to argue that 'luck' is a poor term to describe the outcome of the playoffs--this article is sentimental fluff masquerading as reason. The playoffs are just a small sample size compared to the regular of the season. But what makes it so watchable, compared to the flipping of the coin, or the roll of the dice in games of luck, is the hyper-attention that is placed on every aspect of the game. A hung curveball, a misplayed pop-up could spell the end of seasonal existence for a playoff team. Under the brightest lights, these athletes are thrown into competition, and it is a brute contest of 'who wants it more?' and that's why I watch the playoffs, not to see the end result of a coin flip. To call it that is a disservice to what athletes actually do.

Posted by: Ron at October 18, 2006 06:43 PM

If the Royals were better than the Tigers, they would be in the playoffs. Plain and simple. Some teams just have other team's number.

It's all about maintaining a solid winning percentage, then having your best players peak at the right times.

Now, does that mean luck is completely out of the equation? Of course not. However, it doesn't play nearly as big as part as the author would have you believe.

Now, if the playoffs were like March Madness or the FA Cup, then it would be another story. A straight knockout tournament involves about 50% luck, if you ask me.

Posted by: Josh at October 18, 2006 08:15 PM

this whole line of conversation is crazy to me. to be the best team willhave to win at the end. does he want the team with the best ops+ during the regular season to just win the "sabermetrics cup"? come on!

Posted by: Tim at October 19, 2006 09:59 AM

Yeah but the point is, any team (not necessarily the best team) can win in the end. When it comes down to one game, as the Mets and Cards are, even if one team dominates the other in every other match up throughout the season, there is always going to be a chance that the lesser team wins.

If a team gets in to the playoffs with a 40% winning percentage, they can be expected to win 4 out of every 10 games. If they win the first four, they could be expected to loose the next 6 but it's already too late, they've won.

Posted by: ed at October 19, 2006 10:43 AM