You dont want the best record...

in my last 30 leagues..27 80mil..3 100mil....the team that had the best record during the regular season won the finals 8 times { 2 tied for the best record} and LOST 22 TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...I know its a small sample but come on....anybody else have similar results in their last 30 leagues?

7 games is such and extreme small sample size, it's absurd to expect any kind of predictable results.

it was 30 seasons! where are you getting 7 games from? I wouldn't call having the best record and winning the title only 27% of the time in 30 seasons a small sample that's why I asked if anyone else had similar results

Looking at the final four teams in the last 30 MLB postseasons, the team with the best record of the four won...9 championships. From 1989-2006 it only happened twice.

In my leagues, all 140mil and above, 17 of 26 teams with best record won the finals.

it was 30 seasons! where are you getting 7 games from? I wouldn't call having the best record and winning the title only 27% of the time in 30 seasons a small sample that's why I asked if anyone else had similar results

Steve was talking about the 7 games of a playoff series. If you were more thoughtful about it, you would have realized that. But you're into voodoo. Steve isn't--which is why he is so successful and a fun opponent too.

Once you get to the playoffs in a 12 team league, you expect a base 25% chance to win--regardless of the record.
Because in a short series where it is first to 4 wins, any team can have a streak, especially accounting for badly timed injuries.
8 of 30 is actually higher than expectation. And Badjam showed another set of data that shows an opposite example from what you had.

So what?

Additionally, the topic regarding the performance of a league's highest performing regular season teams has been well-worn here for years.
They typically have at least one of two characteristics:
1. Performed very well against their division--which means they were tuned to those parks/opponents.
2. Got a lot of wins against a very weak opponent or two.

Here is a great example: https://365.strat-o-matic.com/league/455170
Best record in league but in the weakest division. Lost semis. Had the best RunDiff too. Best division record.
Happened to me many times. And I always tip my cap to the opposing manager. That's better than sulking like a child.
This team qualifies under your "metric"--but there's no "explanation" needed--when you look at this team under your metric, the answer would be so what?

I also have many examples as the best record and winning it all.

I still don't understand why it is hard to understand.
But even more, I don't understand the argument that someone is pulling strings at SOM to facilitate some kinds of outcomes. Especially when the outcomes are about as expected by chance.

Tiring. Not sure what your holy grail is, but it doesn't exist.

in my last 30 leagues..27 80mil..3 100mil....the team that had the best record during the regular season won the finals 8 times { 2 tied for the best record} and LOST 22 TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...I know its a small sample but come on....anybody else have similar results in their last 30 leagues?

You do realize that most of the people that contributed to the best record are not in the playoffs. An even squad that is capable of beating most teams no matter what the lineup performs worse in the playoffs when 6 of 7 games can be pitched with your 3 best pitchers. a 10-10-9-2 pitching salary team will fare much better in playoffs than a 8-8-8-7 team even though the latter may be dominant in the regular season.

my only point was your odds of winning a ring are much better if you do not have the best record...at least thats my experience the last 30 seasons...no I dont subscribe to the voodoo theory...not entirely anyway...but on point your odds of winning a ring are much better if you dont have the best record...I get anything can happen...IM Stepping away from this because you have so liitle control of anything when it comes to dice

Assuming all 30 leagues were 12 teams and there were no ties for best record, that gives us 30 teams with the best record and 90 other playoff teams. 7 championships divided by 30 teams = 23.3% odds of a ring for teams with the best record. 23 championships divided by 90 teams = 25.6% odds of a ring for teams without the best record.

2% better results for the latter group is "much better" in your estimation?

Small sample but my last 2 100+ teams lost in the semis, one in 4 straight.