HAL is against me

How can you explain having 2 100+ win teams lose in the semi’s. 0-4 in one and 1-4 in another. Do I need to plan winning less games. I like a challenge but this is almost too much. Thoughts?

sometimes its the matchups - how did you do against those teams in regular season that beat you in the playoffs?

It's a coin flip. 4 teams in the playoffs, it's a 1 in 4 chance of winning the ring (give or take a few percentage points)

We often talk/joke about the "100 Win Curse". Some believe it's real, most don't. I do think that the better your team (100+ win teams are rare and more memorable) the more likely you are to remember the sting of losing in the semis.

Conversely, you rarely remember the 82 win team that won you a ring.

That being said, I have always believed that there are "things" going on that we are not aware of and have no control over. One of them being some kind of factor that makes certain teams over perform and others fall on their face.

To get 100 wins, you have to do extremely well against the other three teams in your division. That's 72 games, win 2/3 of those and you'd only need a slightly better than .500 record in the other 90 games against everyone else. But when the playoffs roll around, that 100 win team may have a losing record vs. the other three superior playoff teams who struggled to get to the postseason in tougher divisions. Not all 100 win teams are created equal. If you won 60 of your non division games and only 36 vs. division rivals, that team would be more dangerous in the playoffs than one that rolled through their own division.

Steve and Rich's comments are spot on. and super typhoon's

I'd add that getting to 100 wins (or whatever) is no guarantee of anything. I'd also say what makes me feel better is to offer the opponent a congratulations, tip the cap, and know that at some point you will be on the other side of it. But I know I never disparage anyone--heck I had a 100+ win team get swept by a team with a losing record. Them's the breaks.

More to the mechanics of it in SOM, it can depend on your intra-division record--ie did you beat up on a really weak division? Did you have a bunch of guys who were injured a lot less than expected? Or guys that had outsized production for their card? Even in real life, this idea that having 100 wins is an entitlement to anything is hogwash--just ask the '69 Orioles...or the Indians in the 50's...or the Yanks in 1960. Plus, it is what makes it fun. (edit--OK the Pirates were only maybe a shockj to spoiled Yankee fans but you get the point!)

The alternative is we just dictate the outcomes on descriptive stats such as run diff, record, etc--and if you do that, then where do you start?

Well done winning 100+. It is bittersweet but it makes those championships that much more special.

Heck, ask the best team of my lifetime, the 2022 Dodgers!

Heck, ask the best team of my lifetime, the 2021 Dodgers!

Hehe...Were you not born yet in 1998?
Oh Oh...you mean the best Dodger team of your lifetime.
Gotcha

Note I would have mentioned the Mariners in 2001, but you know...same team beat them too...
After all, when you don't win it all, it is easy to be forgotten.

Oh...that may not be a nice thing to say in the spirit of this thread

We all suffer from selective memory

Dude I admit it I'm jealous of the modern Dodger blue.

We have Aaron Judge and.......that's about it.

tips cap