Although it took 3 full pages - I'm glad to see a team from the mini A's dynasty of 88-90 get brought up.

They were mentioned on the old thread.

So going 18 and 0 on the road against your three strongest opponents "isn't much more than trivia," even though by doing so you win the LCS and the World Series in the process.

The 18 and 0 is trivia. Winning the LCS and WS is not. The two have very little to do with each other. If the Yanks had won Game One in Yankee Stadium, then lost a game in Atlanta, it wouldn't have made any difference.

First, my bringing that 18 and 0 up in the first place was in response to a post which seemed to imply that because of a 7 game win differential in the regular season, the 1996 Indians were somehow a demonstrably better team than the Yankees. I find that reasoning dubious, and noted that 18 and 0 mark (which included a sweep at Jacobs Field) as a way of noting the real triviality of 99 vs 92 wins between two teams not in the same division. If OTOH the Yanks had won 85 games and missed the playoffs, then those 18 games would have dwindled to 12, and I would then acknowledge their triviality. Context matters.

As to the WS, what you say is true but kind of pointless, since in fact the Yankees were in a position of having to win those road games in Atlanta---which they did, and which to me said a hell of a lot about the quality of that team.

The 1976 Reds won all their postseason road games. They won all their postseason home games, too. That's a lot more impressive than the 1996 Yankees. I don't much care how those Reds performed against the Phillies and Dodgers on the road during the regular season, and I don't see what difference it makes.

I'm not going to begin to argue that the 1996 Yankees were superior to the 1976 (or 1975) Reds, and I'll leave it at that. The 1998 Yankees, yes, but none of their other 90's teams.

I wonder if Vince Colman would get a full-time job if he was 23 today. Maybe not, huh?

Yes he would, and Moreno too I guess. Some teams still like having .300 OBP guys at the top of their lineups, huh?

Well, Coleman appears to have been a useful regular in two seasons, 1987, when he had a .363 OBP and stole 120 bases in 140 tries (valuable when it's that many and that high a rate, I think), playing what appears to have been average defense, and 1990, when he had a 104 OPS+ and an 81% success rate. In every other season, he was definitely not an asset.

Andy, here's the article I had in mind.

Andy- "As to the WS, what you say is true but kind of pointless, since in fact the Yankees were in a position of having to win those road games in Atlanta---which they did, and which to me said a hell of a lot about the quality of that team."

That's absolute garbage logic, and I assume you know it. Also, the 1996 AL Central went 417-391, the 1996 AL East 392-418.

What I'd really like to know is, if Coleman's career started in 2006, would he steal 100+ bases? I think he wouldn't. One other thing I'd like to know is how a discussion about the best teams in the history of baseball deviates to Vince Coleman?

I'm officially convinced re: 1995 Braves, although I would bet they finish near the bottom of the sim more often than not. That's not really a knock on them, I doubt even Sam "The Umpires Wanted Houston to Win" H. would claim the 1995 Braves were the equals of the '27 Yankees, '06 Cubs, etc.

Just to briefly touch on the Andy's thing about the Lifetime Achievement, it's a fun idea, but not really pratical for this kind of thing. The fact that the 2003 Braves had John Smoltz closing wasn't any use to the 1996 Braves and I think you could assemble an Atlanta superteam probably close to the level of others, but it never really existed

Random thought -

If/when this comes to a vote, may want to run it so that if two people say the 1989 A's, and another says 1990, that you count those votes together and put them behind the team with the most votes UNLESS someone specifically says something like "I don't want any of my votes going toward Team X or any non-WS winner not listed on the ballot" or something like that. Otherwise you could end up with some dynasties - the Mustache Gang would be the most notable one threatened by this - which lose out to just enough 1-year-wonder teams because the dynasty's votes are spread out over multiple teams.

1973 A's (personally find 'em better than '74 club, but I'll flow with what everyone else does on them).

One argument against the 1973 club is that they didn't have the best Pythagorean record in the league (96-66, vs the Orioles 102-60) and only beat the O's 3-2 in the playoffs (and tne 82-79 Mets 4-3). The 1974 team had the best Pythagorean record in the league (97-65) and went 7-2 in the playoffs including 4-1 over the Dodgers (106-56 Pythagorean record)

The '95 Braves had an OPS+ of 97 and were 9th in the league in RS, that doesn't scream great team to me. Yes, the led the league in ERA, but they did in '97 and '98 too while having a much better offense.

Oh and the 97-65 Pythag in '74 was 11 games better than the Orioles and Yankees that year who tied for 2nd.

Dialing back to 1977, yeah, it was an expansion year. Plus it was the first big free agency year. The AL had 4 .600+ teams and the NL had 2. I'm not sure if this is a point in the 77 Yaanks favor or a point against them.

Mark,

Thanks for the link. I printed it out and will reply to it later. I'm sure it will say what you implied, which would of course modify what I posted earlier. (And what a creepy thought, that our national diet and indifference to health care is somehow shrinking us.)


Ben Posted: December 27, 2005 at 11:51 PM (#1796515)

Andy- "As to the WS, what you say is true but kind of pointless, since in fact the Yankees were in a position of having to win those road games in Atlanta---which they did, and which to me said a hell of a lot about the quality of that team."

That's absolute garbage logic, and I assume you know it

Whereas your apparent "logical" Ace in the Hole entails:

Ignoring the head-to-head records;

Confining your comparisons to the first 162 games;

Implicitly giving teams with the best regular season records credit for winning extra games which they didn't win; and

Ignoring the fact that the 1996 Yankees (and this is but one example; I'm not claiming anything particularly special about that year's team) wound up winning 103 games that year, whereas the Indians won 100. The "season" ends with the last out of the World Series, not with the last pitch of the regular season, however difficult this may be to grasp.

The implicit logic of these "ignore or minimize the postseason results" arguments is that a one game edge over 162 games is "significant," whereas an often far greater edge in the postseason is of relatively little importance. Not to mention that the argument's dwelling on "sample size" conveniently glides over the fact that the postseason adds to the sample size.

And BTW, it's interesting that in your response, you decontextualize my argument by omitting the first paragraph, which was:

First, my bringing that 18 and 0 up in the first place was in response to a post which seemed to imply that because of a 7 game win differential in the regular season, the 1996 Indians were somehow a demonstrably better team than the Yankees. I find that reasoning dubious, and noted that 18 and 0 mark (which included a sweep at Jacobs Field) as a way of noting the real triviality of 99 vs 92 wins between two teams not in the same division. If OTOH the Yanks had won 85 games and missed the playoffs, then those 18 games would have dwindled to 12, and I would then acknowledge their triviality. Context matters.

IOW I was not trying to claim that the 18 and 0 by itself proved anything, but the context in which it was achieved proved a lot. It's so much easier to "refute" an argument when you ignore one of its essential points.

Perhaps the best way to diffuse all this is to do what many people seem to want to do: Throw out the entire postseason, and consider only the results of the regular season. This will give the fans of the 1906 Cubs, the 1953 Dodgers, the 1954 Indians, all those Braves teams, and the 2001 Mariners the chance to win a big foam rubber "We're Number One" finger to console themselves with.

But at least announce this condition up front, so as to precertify the narrow focusing of the exercise. As it is now, the standards mean one thing to one group and another thing to another group.

Sort of like the Hall of Fame, I suppose....Oh, well.

The '95 Braves had an OPS+ of 97 and were 9th in the league in RS, that doesn't scream great team to me. Yes, the led the league in ERA, but they did in '97 and '98 too while having a much better offense.

I'm not sure any of the Braves teams should be included on the list. As Andy mentioned, they deserve some sort of lifetime achievement award, but no single Braves team was really all that great. We could include the 1995 team b/c they won the series, but, as noted, they had a pretty mediocre offense. The 1998 team's offense was a lot better, but still not great. Ditto for 1993. The 2003 team had a great offense, but mediocre pitching. I guess if you put a gun to my head I'd pick 1998...they had the best combination of starters, bullpen, offense, and defense.

And including a "best of" Braves team from the run doesn't really seem fair. Why not do the same for the Earl Weaver Orioles, or the Jackie Robinson Dodgers, or the Koufax Dodgers?

I guess the perfect Braves team would have the rotation from 1997 or 98, the offense from 2003, and the bullpen from 2002 or 2004.

And including a "best of" Braves team from the run doesn't really seem fair. Why not do the same for the Earl Weaver Orioles, or the Jackie Robinson Dodgers, or the Koufax Dodgers?

All the "best team" threads seem to involve different people working with several different definitions of "best:"

--(1)Best team over one season only, 162 games only. A variant of this often gives weight to modern teams because of the increased competition, but not everyone agrees with this. Postseason failures not counted against teams within this category.

--(2)Best team over one season only, postseason included, but no weight given for surrounding seasons. So the 1912 Red Sox or 1984 Tigers are considered on an equal footing with, say, the 1998 Yankees, with no penalty for their relative lack of surrounding seasonal success.

--(3)Best team over the regular season, postseason minimalized or ignored, but credit given for surrounding seasons. The standard used by fans of the 1990's Braves.

--(4)Best team over the entire season, postseason included, and with bonus (or tiebreaker) points given for accomplishments of surrounding seasons, including the postseasons. This obviously weights rings over regular season statistical extra-dominance, and in its purest form would favor, say, the 1951 Yankees over the 1906 Cubs. (Though I make no serious case for that 1951 team.)

It seems to me that almost all of our arguments are over which set of standards to use, because within each set, the choices become much more focused. To wit: (1) 1906 Cubs (or 2001 Mariners); (2) see your friendly local computer; (3) either the 1991-2005 Braves, the 1947-56 Dodgers, or any one of several Yankee mini-dynasties (with the bonus of a lot of superfluous rings); (4) the 1998 Yankees.

And since this whole thread started with a call to the computer, perhaps it would be fairest to make (2) the standard. One advantage to this is that it invites the largest numbers of teams, and leaves room for non-ring winners with truly exceptional regular seasons, meaning the 06 Cubs and perhaps the 01 Mariners.

No standard, though, should allow the 1954 Indians in. They couldn't have beaten the 1948 Indians (much underrated and usually overlooked), let alone any of the other teams being discussed here.

1948 Indians (much underrated and usually overlooked),

Another team that was in a great pennant race. No one has called me either crazy *or* genius for post #493 suggesting that pennant races *maybe* should be a factor when discussing great teams. I'd like to expand on my thoughts, but work beckons.

Are you arguing that in a hypothetical competition between the best teams the Braves should be able to mix and match players from the various seasons during their run? If so, that defeats the purpose of this whole exercise, which is to find the very best single season team. As mentioned above, you can't add the 2003 Braves' offense to the 1997 starting rotation -- that team didn't exist.

AFAICT, different definitions of "best" have been applied only for the purpose of identifying the very best single season teams...i.e., one can argue that bonus points should be awarded to a particular team for its surrounding seasons to minimize "flukey" teams, but that's not the same as saying that the players or seasons from surrounding years should be used to fill in the gaps on a single season team.

One small tidbit about that 1948 Indians team: IIRC, it was one of only two teams in history with a team ERA over a full run below the league average. And three fourths of their infield had OPS+ numbers of 135 (Gordon), 146 (Keltner) and 165 (Boudreau, who had one of the overall greatest seasons ever in the history of the game).

A somewhat flukish team to be sure, based on three rather flukish career years (Keltner, Boudreau and Gene Bearden), but a great team nevertheless.

AFAICT, different definitions of "best" have been applied only for the purpose of identifying the very best single season teams...i.e., one can argue that bonus points should be awarded to a particular team for its surrounding seasons to minimize "flukey" teams, but that's not the same as saying that the players or seasons from surrounding years should be used to fill in the gaps on a single season team.

Agreed. Good way of putting it.

What was the original thread that sparked this debate?

It's linked at the top of this page, in the introduction to this thread we're on now.

What was the original thread that sparked this debate?

A thread about the 2006 Yankees, what else? :o)

D'oh! Thanks Andy. I am absinthe minded today.

I'm not sure any of the Braves teams should be included on the list. As Andy mentioned, they deserve some sort of lifetime achievement award, but no single Braves team was really all that great. We could include the 1995 team b/c they won the series, but, as noted, they had a pretty mediocre offense. The 1998 team's offense was a lot better, but still not great. Ditto for 1993. The 2003 team had a great offense, but mediocre pitching. I guess if you put a gun to my head I'd pick 1998...they had the best combination of starters, bullpen, offense, and defense.

A few things in regard to this.

1) While a great team with balance has an advantage of a great team that's less balanced, I think it's a mistake to get too carried away with looking for balance uber alles. A team can still be truly great and not be best in the league in both RS & RA.

2) Look at those '98 Braves for a second. An ERA+ of 130 & an OPS+ of 111. Let's compare that to Team X. Team X had an ERA+ of 107 and an OPS+ of 117. Team X was the 1975 Reds. Should we throw them out, too?

3) As it stands right now, it's looking like a 28-team 2-league sim. It's been a few days since anyone's even argued for anything else that I can recall. I'm personally all in favor of it because I still think running 1000 DMB sims will get you the same results on who's the best team if you ran it with 10 teams or 20 teams or 28 teams, so I say put more in so you'll have other fun bits of info come out of it (biggest positive surprise, biggest negative surprise, etc). Getting to the point here, if you got 28 teams, I don't see how you leave out the Braves.

Re: '95 Braves vs. '98 Braves. I can see the case for the '98 squad. Have a clearly superior offense. Even more impressive, they have a better pitching staff - and that '95 staff was historically great. The '98 team won more games. The '98 team had 27.3 innings from guys with an ERA+ under 95, and 808 IP from ERA+s of 146 or higher. The '98 team not only won more games, but achieved their pythag record, while the '95 team clearly exceeded their pythag. The '98 team was 4th in OBP. '95 was 10th in the league in OBP. That's the pro-'98 stuff.

Pro-'95 stuff: There's this guy, and his name was Maddux. He was decent in '95. And by "decent" I of course mean he was enjoying one of the all-time great historic peak performances by any pitcher ever. That's a nifty factoid to have on one's side. A better argument can be made that the '95 Braves were the best team in their league. They won five more games than the second best team in the NL, while the '98 squad won four more games than the Astros. In both cases, they pythag equally to that second best team. The '95 squad has the advantage of winning the pennant. And last and certainly not least, the '95 team won 6 more games in the postseason. The '98 bunch dropped the first three games of the NLCS before beginning a too-little, too-late rally.

I have no real horse in that race, I could go either way. Right now I'd take the '98 Braves. Five minutes from now maybe the '95 Braves. I'd say we definately need to include one of those two teams.

Really like Andy's list in post #417 here. I'd support his decision to make rationale #2 the main one since this is going off to a computer.

However, I'd argue that we should try to adapt all elements when filling out the bracket for the sims. After all, those four different definitions of greatness are legitimate definitions of greatness, so let's put some of the best dynasties with not single fantastic season (coughFinleyA'scough) and see how they stack up. Sure it's a computer sim, but it's a computer sim done to satisfy our own curiousity about who's the best. Would I be the only one who felt a little ripped off if we left out a group like the 1972-4 A's so we can let in a not-so-remarkable one-shot team which led the league in RA & RS (he said while looking pointedly at the 1960 Pirates)?

That's another reason why I prefer a 28 team sim -- it gives us a bit more room for felixibility. We get to toss in the 3-6 Real Contenders, with other historically great teams, and round it out with the best one-year wonders (1984 Tigers), the best dyanasties (Mustache Gang), the best teams to never win it all (2001 Mariners). I think it would be the most interesting and the most satisfactory to all that way.

Going with Definition #2 also aids the case for the '98 Braves over the '95 Braves.

How about a plug for the 1934-35 Tigers?

Gehringer, Cochrane, Greenberg, Goslin, Bridges, Rowe...

1912 Red Sox or 1984 Tigers are considered on an equal footing with, say, the 1998 Yankees, with no penalty for their relative lack of surrounding seasonal success.


The 1983 Tigers won 92 games and finished second, 6 games behind the eventual champion Orioles.
While the 1985 Tigers were a disappointment in third, the Yankees and Blue Jays both won over 95 games that year.
The 1986 Tigers won 87 games with a pythag of 89.
The 1987 Tigers won 98 games and the division over the Blue Jays.
The 1998 Tigers won 88 games and finished a game behind the Red Sox.

Not as great as 84, obviously, but not that bad either.

Oh yeah, one other (very minor) thing:

So the 1912 Red Sox or 1984 Tigers are considered on an equal footing with, say, the 1998 Yankees, with no penalty for their relative lack of surrounding seasonal success.

The Sox didn't do as good in the immediately surrounding years, but half of the lineup of that '12 squad was still starting for the '15 team that won it all. They were four of the best five hitters on the 1916 champs. Two are now HoFers. The pitching had a big overturn, but I believe they were a great fielding team all decade long, and keeping players like Speaker helped that. Also, they came in second in 1914 to the Connie Mack A's, which are also represented (non-controversially) in this project with that team's 1911 edition.

How about a plug for the 1934-35 Tigers?

They were definately a heckuva team. I don't know if I'd support them, but they belong in the hopper. I'd go with '35 myself. They won the series, had a better pythag record, and (by the slightest of margins possible) have a bit of an edge in ERA+ while OPS+ for the two is identical.

As far as I can tell, here's a list of teams now under consideration:

1896 Orioles
1897 Beaneaters
1902/9 Pirates
1904/5 Giants
1906 Cubs
1911 A's
1912 Giants
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1921-4 Giants
1925 Pirates
1927 Yanks
1929 A's
1931 Cards
1932 Yanks
1935 Tigers
1939 Yanks
1940 Reds
1942 Cards
1947 Yanks
1953 Yanks
1948/54 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1957/8 Braves
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1973/4 A's
1975 Reds
1977/8 Yanks
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1989 A's
1992 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
1995/8 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2002 Angels
2004 Red Sox
2005 White Sox

Would I be the only one who felt a little ripped off if we left out a group like the 1972-4 A's so we can let in a not-so-remarkable one-shot team which led the league in RA & RS (he said while looking pointedly at the 1960 Pirates)?

You wouldn't.

What follows is purely subjective, and based on nothing but 53 years of watching baseball. And I apologize in advance for using some very non-SABRistic terms.

Those 1972-74 A's teams had more intangibles, more heart, more character, and more tenacity (no pun intended) than just about any team I've ever seen.

They had an unbelievably deep bullpen, all of whom could have been called upon (and in the postseason were) for use anytime, anyplace, and with nearly any amount of frequency. In the 1973 Series, they got 6 games out of Fingers and 7 games out of Knowles. With 1 run allowed between them in 20 innings, I might add!

Their starting pitching wasn't terribly deep, but the top three were exceptional, and Blue Moon Odom wasn't all that bad, either.

They weren't that great in close games during the regular season, but from 1972-74 they were 14 and 5 in one run games in the postseason. This dovetails with the fact that they underperformed their Pythags during the regular season, but beat two big favorites (the 72 Reds and the 74 Dodgers) in the postseason. They got more rings for the genes than any team I've ever seen, and they remain the only team outside the Yankees to win three in a row.

Not saying they should be in the top 10 or anything, but they were one hell of a team, and more fun to watch than any other squad this side of the 77-78 Yankees in their Bronx Zoo phase.

Just cap the list at the 45 teams Chris listed in 429. Completely unscientifically pick the top 19. Then have the other 26 play head to head series, leaving 13 teams to go with the first 19 -- for a total of 32. Then have your old fashioned bracket system.

I wonder if Vince Colman would get a full-time job if he was 23 today. Maybe not, huh?

Yes he would, and Moreno too I guess. Some teams still like having .300 OBP guys at the top of their lineups, huh?

He was a right fielder, troll.

Then have your old fashioned bracket system.

I personally liked the idea of simming full seasons instead of just a bracket playoff format.

Who's going to run the sims anyway?

Can anyone make a case for the 77/78 LA Dodgers? I'm not sure that they shouldn't be included. The argument to me is largely circumstantial:

1. They defeated one of the Top 28 (The 75/76 Reds) in the regular season. (The 1978 NL West might have been one of the strongest divisions - top to bottom - of all time.)
2. They came close to defeating one of the Top 28 in the World Season (losing 4-2 in 77 and 78). With some good umpiring they could have won the big cheese.
3. Since you have included 2nd-Best Teams, the 77/78 Dodgers should be given a thorough evaluation. They might have been better than the 1995 Indians (who played in one heck of a weak division.)

It pains me to argue for them since I was rabid in my disdain for them back in the day.

He was a right fielder, troll.

I wonder what's your problem with your "troll" comment because the fact you brought Coleman to the discussion really made me think that this type of player would probably still get a starting job. You think no team would give him a job? Fine. But keep your ####### troll comment for yourself.

One team that is not listed in post 429 but I think deserves consideration is the 1985 Cardinals. First in RS, close second in RA, pennant winner (possible WS winner without blown call), only team to win 3 pennants in the 'parity decade' of the 80s, and (if we're trying to contrast different styles in this simulation) they're a good representative of the astroturf speed game that was prevalent during the era of cookie cutter ballparks. Plus, to answer a previous question, they tie the discussion of Vince Coleman to the subject of the thread.

I personally liked the idea of simming full seasons instead of just a bracket playoff format.

Who's going to run the sims anyway?

SG is running the actaul sims, and I think we're going to go with full seasons rather than a bracket system.

I was looking at the list of potential teams and noticed there weren't any from 1977 to 1984, which is as big a gap as there is in that list. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any dominant team in that span, Maybe the Royals in 1980, after giving them a lot of extra-credit for being good for a long time. Problem is the Yanks won more games that year (but we already have that 77/78 team). And in the NL, the Pirates (We Are Family), Phillies (good but not great for a long time) and Dodgers were just good enough to break the hearts of us Expos fans.

OPS+ / ERA+
1977 Dodgers 108 / 119
1978 Dodgers 115 / 112
1995 Indians 117 / 121

If you're going to bring up that bad umpire's call on Reggie Jackson's hip in the 78 WS, you might also mention that the Dodgers advanced to the 77 WS largely on the basis of Bruce Froemming's terrible call in the third game of the NLCS against the Phillies.

And if you're going to allow non-winners in the mix, the 95 Indians definitely belong. That was a great and balanced team that had the bad luck in the World Series to run into one of the best rotations of all time. That 1995 Atlanta rotation might well have stifled any team in a short series, including (gasp, choke) the 98 Yankees.

(Enters special confessional chamber designed for agnostics)

Plus, to answer a previous question, they tie the discussion of Vince Coleman to the subject of the thread.

And I just brought up the 1979 Pirates, so Moreno is now also linked to the discussion. I think we just performed a "dehijack", or "lowjack" maybe, I don't know.

They had an unbelievably deep bullpen, all of whom could have been called upon (and in the postseason were) for use anytime, anyplace, and with nearly any amount of frequency. In the 1973 Series, they got 6 games out of Fingers and 7 games out of Knowles. With 1 run allowed between them in 20 innings, I might add!

They called upon Catfsih in the '72 and '74 post-season to pitch out of the bullpen. I am not sure if using him suggests a lack of depth in the bullpen or not. He also did the same for the Yankees in '76.

As far as I can tell, here is the complete list of teams that have been mentioned. There's a total of 64 in here:

1896 Orioles
1897 Beaneaters
1902 Pirates
1903 Red Sox
1904 Giants
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A's
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1917 White Sox
1921 Yankees
1923 Giants
1925 Pirates
1927 Yanks
1929 A's
1931 A's
1931 Cards
1932 Yanks
1934 Tigers
1935 Tigers
1936 Yankees
1939 Yanks
1940 Reds
1942 Cards
1942 Yankees
1946 Red Sox
1947 Yanks
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1958 Braves
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1969 Orioles
1970 Orioles
1973 A's
1974 A's
1975 Reds
1976 Reds
1977 Yanks
1978 Yanks
1979 Pirates
1980 Royals
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1988 Mets
1988 A's
1989 A's
1992 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2002 Angels
2004 Red Sox
2005 White Sox

Scoriano,

IIRC, in 1974 Hunter was used to pitch to one batter only. And with their LH ace reliever (Darrold Knowles) missing the 72 Series due to injury, Hunter came in to pitch about 3 innings in G7 when Blue Moon Odom had to be taken out on short notice due to either injury or hysteria. Being the last game of the season, and with Knowles unavailable, Dick Williams wanted his best pitcher on the mound in the middle of the game, even if he (Hunter) was on only two days rest. He wanted to save Fingers for the last inning or two.

BTW that 1974 game which Hunter saved with three pitches (a strikeout on the only batter he faced) shows the dramatically differnt usage of relievers back then, and may help to show why many of us think Rollie Fingers is a lot better than his raw stats indicate. In that game, Fingers came in with the bases loaded and one out in the fifth, and held the Dodgers scoreless until Jimmy Wynn hit a solo homer in the ninth. He then went on to pitch in games 3, 4, and 5 of a 5 game Series.

In the A's 19 WS games from 1972 to 1974, Fingers appeared in 16 of them. He took exactly one day off in each Series. As the Goose said, let's see Rivera try that!

OPS+ / ERA+
1977 Dodgers 108 / 119
1978 Dodgers 115 / 112
1995 Indians 117 / 121

Andy,

I'll take your word for it about the quality of the Indians because I wasn't paying attention to baseball from 1994 to 1999. (I was in a funk of hate because of the 1994 strike.)

Might the outstanding OPS+ and ERA+ of the 1995 Indians be due to the dilution from expansion in 1994 and the pitiful teams in the AL Central of 1995? OPS+ and ERA+ result from a comparison to the league average and if the league was weak then the Indians look better.

There was expansion in 1977, as well, which benefitted the Dodgers. But in my view the teams in the late 1970s were better top-to-bottom than 1992 - 1997 (cherry picking.)

I don't think it's a lock that the 95/96 Indians were better than the 77/78 Dodgers. My intention was to compare the teams that lost a World Series and make sure the right "2nd-Best Teams" were included. In that vein, I would leave out the 2001 Mariners since they lost in the ALCS and had a sub-par record of 4-6 in the postseason. The Dodgers in both 77 and 78 had a decent postseason record of 5-5.

I would include the 77/78 Dodgers only to see how the simulation compares them to the 77/78 Yankees - a team everyone feels should be included but IMO wasn't a Top 16 or Top 24 team.

No question that the 77-78 Dodgers were a fine team, and IIRC they were favored to win the Series the first time around. It wouldn't bother me to include them in a Sim.

I don't think they could beat the 95 Indians, though. The expansion you speak of, BTW, was in 1993, not 1994, and only involved going from 26 teams to 28. I doubt if Clevelands' 1995 dominance had much to do with that 1993 expansion.

Finally, [the 2002 Angels] were no fluke. Sure '03 was a comedown, but they went back to the playoffs in '04, & made it all the way to the ALCS this year, becoming the only team to beat the CWS at all in the postseason.

I disagree with your interpretation of the timeline. The meaningful link isn't between the 2002-05 roster, it's 2001-03. They had basically the same team and went 152-172 in the non-World Series years. Moreno's subsequent spending spree does nothing to legitimize what happened in 2002. In fact, it serves as further evidence of the fluke: if a team wins 92 and 95 games after adding Guerrero and company, it obviously wasn't on that level to begin with.

You have to include either the 2001 or 2002 "Moneyball" A's, just for sheer entertainment value. C'mon... Jeremy Giambi, Eric Hiljus, Jeff Tam... God, I'm getting nostalgic just thinking about it.

My 32 teams, pulling 3 from each decade since 1900, except 2 from the current one:

(1) 1904 NYG
(2) 1906 Cubs
(3) 1909 Pitt
(4) 1911 A's
(5) 1912 BSox
(6) 1912 NYG
(7) 1925 Was
(8) 1927 NYY
(9) 1929 Cubs
(10) 1931 A's
(11) 1931 Cards
(12) 1939 NYY
(13) 1940 Cin
(14) 1942 Cards
(15) 1946 BSox
(16) 1953 Brooklyn
(17) 1954 Cle
(18) 1954 NYY
(19) 1961 NYY
(20) 1968 Det
(21) 1969 Bal
(22) 1974 Oak
(23) 1975 Cin
(24) 1978 NYY
(25) 1984 Det
(26) 1986 NYM
(27) 1988 Oak
(28) 1995 Cle
(29) 1998 Atl
(30) 1998 NYY
(31) 2001 Sea
(32) 2001 Oak

If there's one round of simulations they sure as hell don't belong, but I think one of the '77-'80 Royals teams could deserve a chance in a play-in round.

When I was a kid the '77 Royals team would always best the other good Royals teams when I played them head-to-head, but the '80 team is probably more representative.

The extra benefit from picking the 1980 version would be to possibly see Brett take another run at .400.

As far as I can tell, here is the complete list of teams that have been mentioned. There's a total of 64 in here:

I have no idea of the time and hassle involved, but, having 64 teams, maybe a vote could determine which teams are included in the top 32. Then, the bottom 32 could also be involved in a "second division" simulation. And then, do like European football. After one or 1000 sims, bottom 4 of the top first division are replaced by the top 4 of the second division. I think it would be kinda cool and it would maybe surprise us. Perhaps one team won't be voted in the top 32 but is really underrated by everyone, who knows.

what no 2004 Cardinals.....:)

Rather than have everybody vote for a list of 20-30 teams, which I think will lead to chaos, why not have SG or someone come up with a reasonable list by trimming the bunch in #442 a bit to eliminate "duplicates" (like 1973 AND 1974 As). Then instead of voting who to include, we vote who to eliminate until we get down to the desired number.

As for the ideal number, 28 seems too many. 20-24 sounds best to me.

28 lends itself perfectly to home-and-home series with each of the other teams, for a total of 162.

BUBBLE TEAMS:

LA Dodgers 76-78
285 wins (Pythag: 288)
2 Pennants
0 World Championships
Overall Postseason Record: 10-10 in 4 playoff series
Argument For: Had to beat a great Reds team just to make the playoffs (Reds in that span had 282 wins); Had to play a great Yankees team (297 wins) in the World Series.
Argument Against: Underperformed Pythag by 3 games; Couldn’t beat Yankees.

Cleveland Indians 1995 - 1997
285 wins (Pythag: 274)
2 Pennants
0 World Championships
Overall Postseason Record: 20-17 in 7 playoff series
Argument For: Had misfortune of facing great Braves pitching in 1995; Exceeded Pythag by 11 games; best hitting team of the decade?
Argument Against: Couldn’t beat “weak” Florida Marlins in 1997; the AL Central was truly wretched from 1995 to 1997.

Seattle Mariners 2000 - 2002
300 wins (Pythag: 293 wins)
0 Pennants
0 World Championships
Overall Postseason Record: 8-11 in 4 playoff series
Argument For: 116-win season; Division competition consisted of revolutionary and arguably great GM Billy Beane and the 2002 World Series Champions; Exceed Pythag; Ichiro!
Argument Against: No WS Appearances;

It appears to me that these 3 teams are essentially similar. Consistency requires that one either votes for all 3 teams or leaves all these 3 off the ballot entirely.

It pains me to say that I think the Dodgers were underrated primarily because the 2-Division alignment of that era resulted in stronger competition. I think their pitching would have been just good enough to squeak by the M’s but perhaps not the Indians.

It appears to me that these 3 teams are essentially similar. Consistency requires that one either votes for all 3 teams or leaves all these 3 off the ballot entirely.

I disagree; the '01 Mariners have a trait that the other two teams don't, and framing the teams as three-year chunks does not obscure that.

Related to my post #454, if you include the 2001 Mariners in a group of 32 or 64 I feel that omission of the 2001 Dbacks would be an error. As we know, the Dbacks beat the team that beat the M's. That is my justification for including the Dbacks.

What trait is that Monty?

Related to my post #454, if you include the 2001 Mariners in a group of 32 or 64 I feel that omission of the 2001 Dbacks would be an error. As we know, the Dbacks beat the team that beat the M's. That is my justification for including the Dbacks.

I don't see how you can possibly justify that kind of logic. Are you actually suggesting that the 2001 Diamondbacks were better than the 2001 Mariners?

From SG's list of 64 teams -

1923 Giants

- I'm the one who mentioned them, & I meant either the 1921 or 1922 Giants - one of the teams that won the Series. Typo on my part. Please correct for any final lists.

The one thought I have on the vote is that 15-20 teams should be put in my acclamation in advance because: 1) They're going in one way or the other dang it, and 2) It makes the actual vote considerably less of a collosal mess.

What trait is that Monty?

I --

Are you serious? The trait of "(Tied for) most wins in a regular season", obviously. If it's possible to include non-Series winners, you start with the teams that won more than anyone else in the regular season, and that's the 1906 Cubs and 2001 Mariners. "Ichiro!" is not an argument, nor is "faced Billy Beane in their division".

Even in your three-year teams (which is not, as far as I can tell, what this project is going to test), the Mariners have 15 more wins than the other two examples, or an average of five more per year. "Consistency" does require that we pretend the teams are indistinguishable.

The M's won 116 games, which none of the others did, altough the '95 Indians would've had a very outside chance (they would've had to go 16-2). None of those other teams have that claim

Painfully, yes. My justification was logical. Granted, the Dbacks were lucky to win (as they won 4 games to 3 in the bottom of the 9th). Wow! the Dbacks outscored the Yankees 37-14 in the World Series. So, the Yankees 3 1-run victories were what forced a Game 7.

Since the M's weren't even close, losing 4-1 to the Yankees, they were the 3rd best team that year.

The Indians had a 112.5-win pace in '95, so I don't know that the Mariners really did much to separate themselves from Cleveland.

The are not really 64 teams on the list. There are many duplicates.

After eliminating duplicates, you get around 50 teams, or maybe more because I put together some Yankee teams that are not really duplicates but had several identical core players. I'm sure some will determine whether each of these Yankee teams should be represented.

Anyway, here's the list of 50 I came up with just by grouping teams from SG's post 442.

1896 Orioles
1897 Beaneaters
1902 Pirates
1903 Red Sox
1904/5 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A's
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1917 White Sox
1921 Yankees
1923 Giants
1925 Pirates
1927/32/36 Yanks
1929/31 A's
1931 Cards
1934/35 Tigers
1939/42 Yankees
1940 Reds
1942 Cards
1946 Red Sox
1947 Yanks
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1957/58 Braves
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1969/70 Orioles
1973/74 A's
1975/76 Reds
1977/78 Yanks
1979 Pirates
1980 Royals
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986/88? Mets
1988/89 A's
1992 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
1995/98 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2002 Angels
2004 Red Sox
2005 White Sox

The argument for 28 teams (28 lends itself perfectly to home-and-home series with each of the other teams, for a total of 162) from post 453 is pretty good. If 28 teams is adopted, we'd have to go down from 50, or up to 56 if the two groups idea is possible/desired.

That would leave 5-6 spots up for grabs for the second group. This could allow the 1977-78 Dodgers in, as well as other teams. The 1998 Astros could be the token Houston team, and the 2003 Giants would make Barry Bonds part of the show. Maybe the 1991 Twins too. But I realize I'm getting far from the original objective of that project. Anyway, just suggesting in case it might appeal to the good people here.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the significance of the postseason. That's fine. I can see your POV and I respect it. I will note that no player, coach (except for Beane), or owner sees the playoffs as a crapshoot. There is a consensus among those who play the game that playoffs determine the best team.

The Ichiro! comment was intended to be amusing. The comment on Beane points out the high quality of the AL West in 2001 and in the 2000 - 2002 time frame. That high quality, to me, gives more weight to the 116 wins.

Since the M's weren't even close, losing 4-1 to the Yankees, they were the 3rd best team that year.

[Insert standard argument about regular-season recod vs. postseason results. Include "sample size" discussion. Note: would it save time to just copy/paste the discussion between Steve Treder and Sam M from earlier pages of this thread?]

Since the M's weren't even close, losing 4-1 to the Yankees, they were the 3rd best team that year.

Of course, the Mariners beat the Yankees six of nine times in the meaningless 162-game exhibition that precedes the postseason.

I find it amazing that you can just completely dismiss a 21-win regular season advantage based on five games of a series. A series in which the Mariners were outscored by 3 runs.

I will note that no player, coach (except for Beane), or owner sees the playoffs as a crapshoot. There is a consensus among those who play the game that playoffs determine the best team.

This simply isn't true. Every year there are quotes from players and managers to the effect of "We picked the wrong time to have a bad week."

I don't dismiss it, Mug. It's why I say they were a very, very good team.

That was a very, very good team. So were the 1995 Indians and the 1977 Dodgers. It's not a shame to come in 3rd to these two teams.

Players play differently and managers manager differently in the playoffs. Teams set up their rotations and benches for playing at their best. That is why I give more weight in my evaluation to playoff performance. I'm not averse to weighting regular season performance higher but when you have unbalanced schedules, and divisions of varying qualities it is difficult to normalize records.

Players who say "wrong time to have a bad week" are either using luck as an excuse or not giving credit to a better team.

Players who say "wrong time to have a bad week" are either using luck as an excuse or not giving credit to a better team.

Luck may be an excuse, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that luck (or randomness or chance or whatever other synonym one might prefer) is a real factor in the outcome of the events that comprise baseball games, nor does it in any way alter the fact that the smaller the number of observations, the greater the likelihood that luck/randomness/chance will have a meaningful bearing on the result.

We may not prefer things to be this way. Baseball players may or may not understand or acknowledge that they are this way. But things are this way.

Jeez, you guys have about 500 posts and still haven't decided on a format or a number of team or who the correct teams should be.......sounds like a democracy in action if you asked me.

Not that you need yet another idea but here's a vote to go with 64 teams like the NCAA's do for college basketball.

Goodness knowa that the most fun any fan has throughout the year.

Could you bracket teams like the NCAA's do with the #1 team ranked based upon pythagorean/actual wins against their league; rank the teams 1 through 16 and play it off for 5 or 7 games, like a series?

If this is truly cockamamie, I'll go away quietly and only observe not comment.
Good luck guys; this really looks like fun!

Jeez, you guys have about 500 posts and still haven't decided on a format or a final number of teams or who the correct teams should be.......sounds like a democracy in action if you asked me.

Not that you need yet another idea but here's a vote to go with 64 teams like the NCAA's do for college basketball.

Goodness knows, thats the most fun any fan has throughout the year.

Could you bracket the teams like the NCAA's do, with the teams ranked based upon pythagorean/actual wins against their league? Play 5 or 7 games, like a series?

If this is truly cockamamie, I'll go away quietly and only observe not comment.
Good luck guys; this really looks like fun!

Luck may be an excuse, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that luck (or randomness or chance or whatever other synonym one might prefer) is a real factor in the outcome of the events that comprise baseball games, nor does it in any way alter the fact that the smaller the number of observations, the greater the likelihood that luck/randomness/chance will have a meaningful bearing on the result.

Steve, this is fine as you as you acknowledge its corollary: Luck can determine the outcome of a regular season race just as much as it can in the playoffs.

I've never been able to see the great significance (meaning in terms of measuring team strength, which it what's being discussed here) of a team winning a pennant or division race by one game, when in many cases that one game was more than made up for by luck and / or injuries, which in many cases most emphatically do not "even out" over 162 games any more than they do in the playoffs.

If "regular season" mavens would acknowlege this luck factor more freely, I'd be inclined to take their complaints about the luck and randomness of the playoffs more seriously. The "large sample size" of a 162 game season does not bestow equal breaks on all teams, and hence a one or four game edge over 162 games is no more worthy of significance than a victory in a best-of-7 playoff.

And this doesn't even get into the whole question of teams with large leads resting or coasting late in the year, which affects their win totals, often considerably though not measurably.

I'll read your answer later, as I'm off for a few hours.

Tks SG in ATL ....... The post WWII Big Leagues were a completely different animal in terms of competition ....no union ...extreme darwinism...attendence surged....the dollars increased for the players and all of the baseball infrastructure.....racism notwithstanding Baseball was the only show...football and basketball in the incubator.....the greatest athletes were in MLB....and this is one atmospheric that sometimes gets lost when we try to distill the best from the best.....post ww2 to pre korea... any sim deal would be remiss not to enter T. Williams into the fray.....
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_1946.shtml

Luck can determine the outcome of a regular season race just as much as it can in the playoffs.

Yes, it can to the extent that the race is quite close. But no, it can't to the extent that 154 or 162 trials provides a vastly better opportunity for the genuine quality of players and teams to emerge than a trial of 5 or 7 games possibly can.

luck and / or injuries, in many cases most emphatically do not "even out" over 162 games any more than they do in the playoffs.

They might not, but they have an enormously greater likelihood of doing so in a trial 20-30 times as long.

If "regular season" mavens would acknowlege this luck factor more freely, I'd be inclined to take their complaints about the luck and randomness of the playoffs more seriously.

I hope you consider it freely acknowledged by this particular "regular season maven."

The issue isn't that the regular season is a perfect test. Randomness plays a major element there too. But there is simply no means of avoiding the fundamental, inescapable, ubiquitous, omnipresent, tedious, frustrating reality that sample size matters. If randomness is a big issue in regular season outcomes -- and it is -- then it is a clear and simple fact that randomness is a far bigger issue in post-season outcomes.

Maybe baseball would be a better, more interesting, more valid, more compelling sport if this weren't the case. I don't know. But whatever our feelings of loving this reality or hating it, or somewhere in between, it is the reality we have.

As far as I can tell, here is the complete list of teams that have been mentioned. There's a total of 64 in here

64? We could have a March Madness style tournament.

I am sick and tired of guys like Albert Belle and Sabastan demanding that the Billy Beane A's be represented.

For the Diamondmind season, why do we not just have a vote on the 30 (or 28 or 32) representatives?

interesting comments
strong silence Posted: December 28, 2005 at 06:14 PM (#1797607)
We'll have to agree to disagree on the significance of the postseason. That's fine. I can see your POV and I respect it. I will note that no player, coach (except for Beane), or owner sees the playoffs as a crapshoot. There is a consensus among those who play the game that playoffs determine the best team.


notice the part where he says no player, coach or owner sees it that way. then when the point is brought up that plenty of players remarked that it is a bad week, luck or whatever. his remark is.

strong silence Posted: December 28, 2005 at 06:37 PM (#1797659)
Players play differently and managers manager differently in the playoffs. Teams set up their rotations and benches for playing at their best. That is why I give more weight in my evaluation to playoff performance. I'm not averse to weighting regular season performance higher but when you have unbalanced schedules, and divisions of varying qualities it is difficult to normalize records.

Players who say "wrong time to have a bad week" are either using luck as an excuse or not giving credit to a better team.

I don't get it, so now that we have you admitting that other players besides beane think that way, you are now claiming they are using an excuse.

there is no way you can tell me that the 87 twins were a better team than the 87 cardinals with a straight face. I'm sorry but they had a better week, but they are the worse team in major league history to win a world series title. To think that a team is better based upon one post game series is a joke. The 2002 angels? c'mon now how did they make the list. there have been at least 5 teams since then that are surely better than that team. (2004 red sox, 2004 cardinals, 2005 white sox, 2005 cardinals 2004 yankees...and that is without even trying heck not sure about 2003)

I mean when you look at a team, you have to look at the whole season, you can't judge based upon one post season series, say a team has a healthy star all year long, then he gets injured in the playoffs, and his team loses a couple of nail biters in the first round, is it accurate to say that their team for that year was inferior to the team that beat them? I mean the post season is three weeks of baseball a major injury or two could completly decimate a team. and when you are doing these simulations you are doing them based upon the real team, not the post season team.

I mean a team which has three elite starting pitchers, but two crappy back of the rotation guys, are going to have a better chance in todays post season than a team with 5 good but not elite pitchers. which is the better team? well I would imagine it would depend on the day you face them of course but over the long haul the team with more depth is the better team. (all else being equal of course) but that may not translate in the post season, which is why the post season is a crapshoot. Luck figures in very prominently, a bad call by an ump at a crucial time, an injury before a series starts, a player that is put on the roster through devious means because the rules aren't respected enough, which other teams are unable to get a detailed scouting report about.

Treder, luck is not really a factor in the literal sense. Perhaps somebody swings and misses at a pitch that they would normally hit out of the park. They still swung and missed; they were not unlucky. The universe does not work in a random way at our level. With everybody's exact action and all given conditions, only one outcome will occur.

there is no way you can tell me that the 87 twins were a better team than the 87 cardinals with a straight face

Of, course, but they did play better for one week in October and that is what matters.

cardsfanboy, you seem bitter about the Cardinals inability to win in the post season. And, yes, inferior teams do sometimes win the World Series. You may think that the postseason should be changed. I would agree with you, but a World Series champion is still legitamit, as the rules for that determination are clearly stated before the season.

With everybody's exact action and all given conditions, only one outcome will occur.

Sure, but "everybody's exact action" is a function of all kinds of variables, big and small, that are impacted by randomness. Eyesight, reaction time, coordination, strength -- none of these are completely constant in any of us. They fluctuate according to all kinds of factors, not a lot, but certainly enough to have an impact on such precise outcomes as exactly where a pitch will cross the plate, and exactly which section of the bat will meet (or not meet) which part of the ball.

All sorts of other things may impact the outcome of baseball games that aren't measures of the skill or players or teams. Umpires make good or bad calls. Balls take true or bad hops. The wind carries this ball over the fence, and holds that one up.

The extent that these fortunes favor or disfavor a particular team might or might not "even out" over a full season. But they have a vastly greater potential for evening out to a greater extent, the more games that are played.

Why don't baseball games last just 1 inning? Because 9 innings allows for a better test of the teams, a more confident reading that the outcome reflects the quality of the players and teams. Why don't seasons last just 1 week? Because many weeks, indeed several months, allows for a better test of the teams, a more confident reading that the outcome reflects the quality of the players and teams.

9 innings isn't perfect, but it's better than one at serving this purpose. Twenty-something weeks isn't perfect, but it's better than one at serving this purpose.

Of, course, but they did play better for one week in October and that is what matters.

That is what matters in determining the winner of that year's World Series. That doesn't mean it's what matters in assessing which was innately the "better" team. Having the two teams play each other for many weeks would unquestionably be more efficient at determining that.

Gagne_55 Posted: December 28, 2005 at 07:52 PM (#1797777)
cardsfanboy, you seem bitter about the Cardinals inability to win in the post season. And, yes, inferior teams do sometimes win the World Series. You may think that the postseason should be changed. I would agree with you, but a World Series champion is still legitamit, as the rules for that determination are clearly stated before the season.

actually I'm not bitter at all about their inability to win in the post season, I'm bitter about people putting too much weight on the post season and thinking that is the definition of the better team. Post season is just a series, that is it, nobody would think that the devil rays are a better team if they beat the yankees in a series over the course of a season, why would people think that one team is better just because they won a 7 game series, just because it happened to be an exhibition series after the season was over?

luck is not really a factor in the literal sense. Perhaps somebody swings and misses at a pitch that they would normally hit out of the park. They still swung and missed; they were not unlucky.

What about hitting the ball hard enough to get through the infield, but slow enough to allow the runner to score from second? Or a shallow fly ball dropping between the 2B, SS and CF? Or a broken bat single against Mariano Rivera? Or a warning track catch compared to a just over the fence HR? Looks to me like a great deal of luck is involved in every baseball game, even though it's not necessarily the determinant factor in the game.

Were the 82 Cards better than the 82 Brewers?

Red Faber Posted: December 28, 2005 at 08:11 PM (#1797807)
Were the 82 Cards better than the 82 Brewers?

I don't think so, but it was a lot closer than the 87 cards/twins.

General MGR of team A institutes a policy that whenever a ballplayer is sick he must be quarantined....that there can be no touching handshakes hi 5's hugs to diminish the chance of spreading the flu and thus diminishing the output of the ballclub...General MGR of team B has no such policy and it never crossed his mind... in the extreme...in the abstract...and in relation to the most recent posts there are a myriad of like instances that are part of a teams final w/l...we have to be careful not to mutate baseball into xtreme poker...

For the record, I believe we have decided on a format, we're doing 28 teams playing home-and-home series 3-game series with all the others for a 162 game sim which will be run ~1000 times. The deabte now--before getting into the playoff luck thing again--is which teams to include. We're settling that with a vote January 3rd-January 10th (to let the holidays pass and give anyone who me interested a shot to vote.)

Chances are someone--possibly me who is organizing the vote thread or SG who is running the sims--will pick from the list in #64 which of the "Grouped" teams will be representative of the group and post that final list of ~50 for consideration and open voting.

I wonder what's your problem with your "troll" comment because the fact you brought Coleman to the discussion really made me think that this type of player would probably still get a starting job. You think no team would give him a job? Fine. But keep your ####### troll comment for yourself

This comment makes no sense. You took a gratuitous shot at Jose Reyes. I called you a "troll" because you seem to be a "troll." If you're going to "troll" then get used to comments of this nature.

f so, that defeats the purpose of this whole exercise, which is to find the very best single season team.

If that is your purpose doing one simulation run with a diamond mind game is not going to give you the answer no matter who you put in the competition.

Run it 1 Million times with all possible permutations, and you would get closer, but the bias of the simulation would still show through.

or does it in any way alter the fact that the smaller the number of observations, the greater the likelihood that luck/randomness/chance will have a meaningful bearing on the result.

That is not even close to being true with the most liberal definition of "luck". If luck is causal, as you so often proclaim, then its influence does not vary in the n+1 game.

I think what you are attempting to improperly extrapolate is that a small sample will increase the error IN YOUR HYPOTHESIS that you test with that data set using old methods of analysis,that are a priori are subject to invalidity.

Juxtaposing luck onto that is some wishful thinking.

Baseball players may or may not understand or acknowledge that they are this way. But things are this way.

On what evidence or expertise do you base this proclamation for which you provide no evidence.

They might not, but they have an enormously greater likelihood of doing so in a trial 20-30 times as long.

No they don't. JD Drew's likelihood of injury, and the period of time that he will spend on the DL, has greater impact to his team performance in the 162 game season than in the postseason based on the severity of the injury. If his injury takes 90 days to recuperate, it has less impact in Game 7 of the WS than it does in Game 62.

Now for you to argue that the likelihood is different, you must admit there is something different about the playoff trials than the regular season trials. Which is something to which I would agree, but it isn't consistent in your "all players are robots in a giant dice game" distorted view of the world.

Sure, but "everybody's exact action" is a function of all kinds of variables, big and small, that are impacted by randomness.

NO, they are modelled with random variables. They are external to your control, and a model at a far away point in time has entropy. They are not intrinsically random. You can keep proclaiming it all you want; its just as untrue every time you say it.

Why don't baseball games last just 1 inning? Because 9 innings allows for a better test of the team

Give us a break. Because you rationalize something does not mean that is how reality works. Games aren't 9 innings merely because its a suitable test. I doubt very seriously you could devise a suitable test because you would be constantly searching for equilibrium between fatigue and longevity. I would opine games are nine innings because it produced the proper dramatic effect considering the time of the game. The thought that somebody in the 19th century set down and lineraly optimized a test is not supported by inference, the availability of techniques, or any evidence you have produced.

That doesn't mean it's what matters in assessing which was innately the "better" team.

There is no other definition of innately better that is worthwhile in pursuing. No one is trying to win a pythagorean championship. You are acting as if some collateral effect has meaning. Playing "weeks and weeks" would not give you who is the better team except for the contest of who is better over weeks and weeks. It might, but it might not depending on the two teams, give you more information to predict who would win the next 7 game series. But, you don't put two quarter horses on a ten mile track and say the innately better horse will win the race. You are testing for something entirely different when you go "weeks and weeks."

But it would certainly help, if you understood some of the things you proclaim. If what you want to say is "Given an infinite number of 7 game series, which team wins the most" that is unknowable. You can simulate it and figure it out within the bias of the simulator. That's not the innately best team.

If you want play "but for" in looking for casual analysis of a loss, you can find a pretty large set. Almost always it will contain items that are external to your control. Almost always it will contain items that are external to both teams control. none of that is "random", its merely external. In fact, a past event that has a discrete outcome by definition can't be random. And I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.

Most often this stuff is just excuse making. If you want to take a subset of attributes of a team that performed well in a regular season, and play one season of that team against teams with the same identified subset of attributes in a simulator, feel free. Don't pretend though that it will tell you anything other than who one that "game" --which is not baseball.

If you want to make an argument that somebody was the best team, you are bette