HAL Loves the wild card (if you make the finals)

[yak1407]

Often, I see on this board that HAL loves the wild card.
So I decided to see, based on my 13 teams.
I found that the team that was first overall won 5 of 13 championships, second overall won 3 (1 wild card), third overall three (2 wilds cards) and fourth overall 2 with 1 wild card winning.
So HAL doesn't love that wild card overall.
In terms of making the finals, the first place team made 8 of 13 finals, the second place team overall made 10 of 13 finals ( 1 wild card), the third place team made five of 13 (3 wild card) and the fourth place team made 3 of 13 finals (1 wild card). WIld card teams made 5 of 13. Here, HAL likes the wild card more than the fourth place finisher and as much as the third place finisher.
However, your chances of winning a final are best if you are the wild card. They made 5 finals winning 4. The first overall team is next best, making 8 and winning 5. If you are second overall, you'll get the 1 credit, but you only win three of the 10 finals you reach.
My conclusion is that the reason HAL does loves the wild card in the final. However, in most cases, it knocked the best team out in the first round. The 5 wild card finals saw a 3 beat a 2, a 2 beat a 3, a 4 beat a 2, and a 3 beat a 4. The final where the wild card lost saw a 2 beat a wild card 3. Out of the 5 finals, the higher finishing team, wild card or not, won three. That's pretty consistent with the overall numbers where the higher finishing team won 8 of the 13 finals.
So, while you can take heart if your wild card reaches the final, finishing 1st or second overall is more reason to celebrate.
By then way, 1st overall met 2nd overall 6 times with the 1st team winning 5 of these finals. Curiously, 1sts lost both finals where they did not meet 2nd, once to a 4 (not a wild card) and to a 3rd place finisher.

[bjs73]

I agree with mostly what you said. The wild card team knocking out the league's top dog in the semi's is huge.

My 2 cents. I think it is advantageous to the wild card team that the semi's is only 5 games long. I'd rather have a short series if I'm the weaker team. The short series gives me a chance to compete with my limited depth better than it would in a long 7 series against a top dog team with very few holes.

This works out well when the wild card is carrying 2 good * pitchers and 2 mediocre or poor * pitchers.

My good pitchers are all but gauranteed to be throwing 3 out of 5 games so I like my odds there. If I had to go to game 6 or 7, I'd be in a bit more trouble there.

We'll see how much of that holds water tonight for me in game 5 of the semi's with my so-so wild card team (85 wins) takes on the league top dog who won 108 games.

:D

[Moodywoody]

I have often thought that they should make the semi-finals a best of seven. That would lessen the luck factor somewhat and give a better chance to the best team on making the finals.


The thing about the eighties game, however, is that I have been in leagues were the best team in the league was a WC. Some teams make moves that inevitably make them the best team in the league by playoff time. I have often had teams competing for first overall and dreading the fact that if they do finish first they have to play a powerful WC team. There is no question that often the weakest team by far in the playoffs is the division winner of a dreadful division in which all four teams are mediocre at best.

[yak1407]

I have no problem with the five game play-off. It makes things more interesting, especially if you are a wild card or 4th place team.
What would be fairer is if the play-off seeding could be revised so that the wild card does not meet the first place team in its own division, particularly if they were the best two teams in the league. You'd like to think that the best two teams would meet in the final, not have one of them eliminated in the first round.

[Ducky]

[quote:0f70cc32c2="yak1407"]I have no problem with the five game play-off. It makes things more interesting, especially if you are a wild card or 4th place team.
What would be fairer is if the play-off seeding could be revised so that the wild card does not meet the first place team in its own division, particularly if they were the best two teams in the league. You'd like to think that the best two teams would meet in the final, not have one of them eliminated in the first round.[/quote:0f70cc32c2]

I'd like that change. Nothing worse than battling for the division title with two really good teams and then having to play each other in round 1 of the playoffs.

Mike

[Outta Leftfield]

I'd suggest taking the change further. Have the team with the best regular season record meet the team with the worst regular season record--regardless of division or the wildcard.

What often happens now is that the team with the best record ends up playing a really tough wildcard team. Meanwhile, the team with the 2nd best division-winning record often plays a team that maybe won a weak division with a sub .500 record. That means, you're better off having a worse record. If the team with the best record got to play the sub .500 team, they'd get a reward for having the best record.

A case in point was I team I had that won 105 games, but was in the same division as an outstanding Moodywoody team that won 99 games. A third team in our division was .549. Only one other team in the league had a w/l over .500 (.512) and the weakest divsion was taken with 77 wins. My reward for leading the league in wins was to face this tough Moody team that won 99--and he knocked me out in the semis and went on to win it all. I would much rather have faced that 77 win team--then, with any kind of luck, I could take my chances vs Moody in the finals without complaint.

I've actually found myself going into the final series hoping I would lose some games and end up with the 2nd best overall record. It shouldn't be like that...

[Hakmusic]

One reason that the wild card teams may do as well as they do in the playoffs is that first place teams often sit on what they have whereas teams that are behind are more likely to make changes.

So if a team builds up a large lead, say a 12 game lead in the first 1/2 of the season, they are likely to stay with what they have. A team that is trailing may make changes, and by game 100 be a better team, but not able to make up the gap. Thus, the team with the best record is not necesarily the best team at the point in time when the playoffs start.

My last 7 teams have all finished 1st in the regular season, but I only produced one ring from them. Often, I was the victim of just this. Tweaking a first place team is something that I know I need to do more.

[Yellow_Dog]

I agree that the Wild Card team is often one of the best teams out there. One aspect of the 80s is that some changes at the mid-way point can result in a vastly improved team that might go on a tear after being sub-.500 for the first part of the season. You see that in real life with the Wild Card winning the World Series the last few years. Those are the teams that have generally played very well the last half of the year (If Liriano hadn't hurt himself yesterday, I would have much preferred to play the Tigers rather than the Twins in the playoffs).

EDIT-We posted at the same time Hak. I agree with what you said. But now I'm afraid of you in the Live Draft as you've finished 1st in seven straight seasons???? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[honestiago1]

Just finished a league with a division winning team that went 80-82 (not mine). That team won the championship. The division overall was awful (mainly thanks to my 61-101 team that had three losing streaks of 11+ games). :roll:

[Hakmusic]

>>But now I'm afraid of you in the Live Draft as you've finished 1st in seven straight seasons????<<

Don't be, I've got nothing to show for it except a boatload of let-me-downs. The 7th of these teams just got hammered in the first two games of the finals. I am the Atlanta Braves.