Riddle me this, I just do not get it

[RICHARDMILTER]

OakAth72 said:[quote:99dc161a0c]No matter what topic we dissect in these threads there will always be compelling arguments for and against our ramblings. I do realize that "upsets happen" and the nature of luck, but I am not sure that is necessarily the basis of the discussion......at least for me. RMilter directs us to look at "real life"........in the real life world of baseball they only play one season per year and yes, end of the year upsets periodically happen. In the SOM world we get the privilege of seeing hundreds of seasons per year thus allowing us to map its consistency and indentify trends.[/quote:99dc161a0c]

This is a great point. We DO see tons more season than in real life. But I would like to know, how many real life teams with the best record win it all? I would bet the percentage is very similar. AeroDave's idea is a good one. He always has good ideas. We do this in fantasy football, award some money to the team with the best regular season record. But who would you take the credit away from? I would like to see all the playoff teams get one credit, but I am not sure it is going to happen.

I can think of a great many teams in real life who had the best regular season record and did NOT win it all. In MLB and the NFL! And bedsides no one complains when they have the best record and DO win the championship, so for the most part we only hear about the teams that don't win the championship, and had the best regular season record.

And if this is not the point, what is? Are we suggesting there is some conspiracy against the teams with the best regular season record, or are we suggesting that this is not realistic? Because I would disagree with both sentiments, or theories.

[guardman9]

I get the upsets in real life because of the "intangables." On a scripted card game, the only "intangable" is the roll of the dice....isnt it? I man i have seen HAL (as we all) make some really dumb moves to cause us losses so i guess that is another "intangable"

But when we speak of "dominant" or "best record" we really mean that. In most of my "best record, swept first round" i had an at least 8 game dif between me and the next best team in the league, one of those was a ridiculous 104-58, while the next best was at 89 or 90 wins i think. Head to head, home/away even major dif in runs produced/given up......yet the same result as the others, my offense falls asleep and my pitching staff goes back to their minor league days. Its like HAL rolls every 1,2,3 and 7,8 for one team and all of the 4,5,6 11,12 for the other team.....wish we could see all rolls in all leagues!!!!!!

[MARCPELLETIER]

[quote:d2017849b2]On a scripted card game, the only "intangable" is the roll of the dice....isnt it? [/quote:d2017849b2]

Of course not.

The best team of the league could have an outstanding offense vs rhp, but play only .500 vs lhp. If that team faces three lefties in the first series, chances are greater that it will lose the series.

A wild card team could have the best pitcher in its lineup. That best pitcher accounts only for 25% of the season's starts, but 40% of the first series.

Or it could have an injury-prone team with players all rested and well and the season stars.

[durantjerry]

[quote:991c4245c0]My goal was to get 270HR's while spending $30mil on a pitching staff. [/quote:991c4245c0]
As pointed out above, there can be reasons for a "better" team to lose. However, I read a post in ATG somewhat recently(within the last year or two) where someone checked a bunch of playoff teams and the result was that the "better" team won at a very high percentage. Until someone shows me hard evidence, I can't buy into people noticing a "trend" of teams with the best record or 100 wins losing at a rate that is way off.