A team that does not deserve to be in the tournament that decides eligibility to play in the World Series, by definition, does not deserve to win the World Series -- whether or not they actually did.

I see no non-arbitrary reason the Cardinals should have been allowed in the tournament. Accordingly, they did not deserve to win the World Series.

When a fan reaches into the field of play and turns an probable out into a home run, that's luck.

When a player picks up a baseball and heaves it 10 feet wide of the mark, that's not luck. That's failure to execute, which is based on skill.

I see no non-arbitrary reason the Cardinals should have been allowed in the tournament. Accordingly, they did not deserve to win the World Series.

Non-arbitrary? The rules are "arbitrary"?

I think talking about LaRussa's post-season record is interesting, but the key to greatness as a manager is combining longevity and effectiveness--not many guys can. LaRussa put guys in position to succeed, established good relationships with his very best/key guys so they bought in, and always knew what he was trying to do and how he was trying to do it. He was that way in Chicago, in Oakland, and in St. Louis, and he won in all three places.

Sure, he has tactical blind spots, and yes, he can be self-righteous, pompous, and manipulative; and no, I don't think he's a "genius". But the results are there over three-plus decades, and IMO nitpicking his record sells the guy short. As I have said, I think he is a lot like Phil Jackson.

Non-arbitrary? The rules are "arbitrary"?

Of course they are. They draw a line between in and out that makes no principled sense; letting all 93-win teams into the playoffs would make more sense.

So if it was a 26-team tournament won by the Royals, you'd deem them unequivocally and without deconstruction, the deserving "World Champions" of the 2011 baseball season?

Yeah, there has to be a limit to the nonsense.

Look, they could throw the 8 worst teams into the tournament and we'd have an Exciting Postseason. And we could determine the "champion" from that. Or they could throw 8 random teams in. Or the 8 teams with the Best Lassusian Record for September. We'd have exciting seasons, we'd have champions, and you people would lick the boots of the Champion.

So everything -- everything -- comes down to who you're letting into the tournament, and how you're deciding that. And 8 teams -- 2 of whom lost their divisions -- is a poor setup for that. And the worse the setup is, the greater the chance that an also-ran meh team like the Cardinals will make it in and win it all.

The system is broken. For starters, teams should have to win their divisions to make it in. That won't guarantee we won't get a (relatively) lousy team into the tournament, but it will make it less likely -- and, most importantly, it won't break the regular season.

This silly playoff format has broken the regular season. Nobody cares about division titles anymore; they care about Playoff Berths. Because they have this fantasy that the postseason Means Something rather than being just dumb luck. That is a huge problem.

When a fan reaches into the field of play and turns an probable out into a home run, that's luck.

When a player picks up a baseball and heaves it 10 feet wide of the mark, that's not luck. That's failure to execute, which is based on skill.

No. You're confused because you're not seeing the timing aspect of it. Players -- even great ones -- "heave the baseball 10 feet wide of the mark" all the time. It's just that when they do it in October, it happens to be bad timing. Which is... wait for it... luck.

Virtually all players in the major leagues have the requisite "skill" to play there.

Non-arbitrary? The rules are "arbitrary"?

Of course they are. They draw a line between in and out that makes no principled sense; letting all 93-win teams into the playoffs would make more sense.

The WC is no more arbitrary than having only first-place teams make the tournament, unless you are using the word arbitrary differently than everyone else who speaks the language. Although I am on your side in opposition to the wildcard.

even great ones -- "heave the baseball 10 feet wide of the mark" all the time

no they don't

yes they do

yes they do

I don't think anyone who plays Major League heaves the baseball 10 feet wide of the mark all the time. Well, anyone except Chuck Knoblauch, perhaps.

yes they do

you're right, I forgot all of those times that Scutaro and Pedroia knoblauch'ed those throws into the dugout this year...

In 33 seasons, LaRussa's teams finished first in their division 12 times. His teams won 3 World Series. That seams about fair.

On the other hand, Bobby Cox managed 29 seasons, his teams finished first in their division 15 times. One World Series title. That some terrible luck.

It's just that when they do it in October, it happens to be bad timing. Which is... wait for it... luck.

This definition of luck is so broad as to leave it pointless. It basically encompasses any result, in any field, that isn't 100 percent projectible.

No. You're confused because you're not seeing the timing aspect of it. Players -- even great ones -- "heave the baseball 10 feet wide of the mark" all the time. It's just that when they do it in October, it happens to be bad timing. Which is... wait for it... luck.

So, by your definition, there is no skill at all.

Hitting that home run? Luck (because it could have been a fly ball instead).
Throwing a strike? Luck, again (because you didn't throw it wide of the mark this time).
Making a catch of a routine fly-ball? Lucky he didn't drop it.

The WC is no more arbitrary than having only first-place teams make the tournament, unless you are using the word arbitrary differently than everyone else who speaks the language. Although I am on your side in opposition to the wildcard.

"Arbitrary" as in by whim rather than by principle -- the standard definition.

If you say "any team that finishes with the best record among a pre-selected group of teams (that play effectively the same schedule) shall make the playoffs," that's a principled basis of selecting participants. You may not agree with it, and it may not be the best way to construct the baseball postseason, but it's a principled way.

If you add to that "and the one, and only one team that does not finish with said best record but that otherwise has the best record shall be eligible for the playoffs," you've drawn an arbitrary line. It may not be a terrible line and it may be better than other lines that could be drawn, but there's no principle that suggests that one, and only one, is the right number of non-best-record teams sto admit. Why "one" and not "four," or "two," or "six"?

No priciple leads you to the answer. Only whim.

A couple of years ago, the Steelers won the Super Bowl against the Cardinals with what I thought was a pretty fluky late-game touchdown.
A Steelers fan I know insisted that it was not fluky, that the play succeeded because of great "execution."
So I pointed out that even the Steelers QB thought he'd thrown an interception on that play. Which just made the Steelers fan angry.

I've certainly played enough softball games and tournaments to feel the "WTF just happened?" in both directions - good teams hitting horse#### and kicking the ball around; not-as-good teams playing wayyyyy over our heads for a day or two.

Sometimes even great players and teams #### up at a particularly bad time. Sometimes bad teams or players get it together at just the right time.
Maybe calling this timing "luck" is what throws people.

This definition of luck is so broad as to leave it pointless. It basically encompasses any result, in any field, that isn't 100 percent projectible.

It isn't heaving the ball 10 feet wide that's "bad luck," it's heaving the ball 10 feet wide in October.

Picking the 2nd place team w/ the best record to make the playoffs is a principled basis, although you may not agree with it.

If you add to that "and the one, and only one team that does not finish with said best record shall be eligible for the playoffs," you've drawn an arbitrary line.

No that's by rule and not arbitrary. Otherwise so is drawing the line at one, and only one, from each division makes the playoffs. Whose whim was it that the Cardinals made the playoffs this year?

And by the way, what happened to your big support for the 2nd wildcard?

There's no legitimate basis to conclude that the '88 Dodgers and '90 Reds were inferior clubs. They played entirely different teams and schedules than their A's counterparts -- and won 4-1 and 4-0, respectively, head-to-head.

So what? The Reds swept so you can't say they were lucky? Oh come on. Both those teams beat better clubs in their own LCS, especially the 88 Dodgers. The 69 Mets won in five and it's considered the most famous upset in baseball history. The 54 Giants swept too.

80s baseball was very even, which is why it was so awesome. Joe Posnanski's theory that baseball will never be better than when you're 12 is false when you're in your mid-20s like me; it was the best when I was about 4 or when I was about 18 (abutting the chicks dig the long ball era). To get back to my point...80s teams usually had some weaknesses somewhere and Oakland's big weakness was that it's rotation was not all it was cracked up to be, but they had outstanding offenses and outstanding bullpens. The 88 Dodgers had Gibson and almost nothing else offensively, though they had the Bulldog, a very nice run by Tudor and a very good pen. The 90 Reds again had a below average offense (though it was more evenly distributed), Jose Rijo and the Nasty Boys. I don't see how you can look at the rosters of the A's and their opponents in 88 and 90 and not conclude the A's are better.

Hitting that home run? Luck (because it could have been a fly ball instead).
Throwing a strike? Luck, again (because you didn't throw it wide of the mark this time).
Making a catch of a routine fly-ball? Lucky he didn't drop it.

If I load dice to make it so I roll 7 more often, isn't it still luck if I roll a 7?

And if, for example, throwing a strike wasn't to a large degree a chancy thing, then we could all do it.

And if, for example, throwing a strike wasn't to a large degree a chancy thing, then we could all do it.

No. It's not a "chancy" thing because it requires skill. We all can't throw a baseball properly because of "chance", but because of skill.

It isn't heaving the ball 10 feet wide that's "bad luck," it's heaving the ball 10 feet wide in October.

And if a guy heaves a ball 10 feet wide on July 7, you can say it was "bad luck" that he just happened to do it that day. Ultimately, it says nothing.

Under this definition of luck, every single thing that happens on a baseball field can be attributed to luck, because if things had been timed differently, the result would have been different. It's a completely pointless use of the word.

And by the way, what happened to your big support for the 2nd wildcard?

The best of the non-optimal extant alternatives.

I'd like a split season more and wish they'd give it some thought. It would make the trade deadline more interesting, too, with the tougher decisions to be made when you're 0-0 or thereabouts.

Understanding that it's an entirely personal preference, my disdain of the wild card became complete this year with an almost complete disinterest in the World Series that included one. I sense that it's permanent. The MLB "Finals" with a wild card in them, after two rounds have already been played, in late October, in crappy weather, with hockey having started and basketball starting (in normal years) just aren't particularly competitive in this fan's eyes.

The MLB "Finals" with a wild card in them, after two rounds have already been played, in late October, in crappy weather, with hockey having started and basketball starting (in normal years) just aren't particularly competitive in this fan's eyes.

I presume you stop watching those sports when the regular season ends also, 'cuz while one wild card is icky, it beats the hell out of five.

I presume you stop watching those sports when the regular season ends also.

I really enjoy the first two rounds of the baseball playoffs, even with the warts.

Under this definition of luck, every single thing that happens on a baseball field can be attributed to luck, because if things had been timed differently, the result would have been different. It's a completely pointless use of the word.

What you're missing is that these players are so broadly similar skillwise that every PA and every game ********IS******** driven by luck. (I will emphasize that more the next time if people hereafter fail to understand it.) It takes many, many PAs and many games for the skill to begin to control. That's why ARod goes 0 for October -- and then 10,000 for October. It's why Lance Berkman hits .167 in the NLDS... and then two weeks later is batting with 2 strikes and the season on the line, and comes through with one of the biggest hits in the history of baseball, batting .423 in the Series.

If you or I were facing Neftali Perez Feliz, skill would control and he'd blow us away. But when he is facing hitters who have risen to the very top of all the hitters in the world, we need more time to see who's better. And when we don't have more time, luck controls.

This is so obvious that it amazes me that after all this time, the vast majority of people -- all who have watched this game on this level for years and decades -- haven't the foggiest clue what they're seeing.

This is so obvious that it amazes me that after all this time...

Ray, we know. This is your stance on everything you think and all your conclusions.

Ray, we know. This is your stance on everything you think and all your conclusions.

Just so you're clear, that actually doesn't respond to what I have written.

What you're missing is that these players are so broadly similar skillwise that every PA and every game ********IS******** driven by luck.

Now, wait, this isn't true. I mean, it plainly isn't true. If every PA was driven by luck, everyone would perform (more or less) the same (more or less) every year. Perhaps I'm taking you too literally, but you seem to be suggesting that luck is the reason Derek Jeter is a career .313 hitter, and Ramiro Pena is at .233 for his (more limited, admittedly) career. That's just madness.

I wouldn't put his first sentence exactly the same way, but Ray's right. It's orders of magnitude more difficult to discern anything meaningful about player or team skill from a single baseball game than from a single football, basketball, or hockey game. Pick an 80s Celtic game out of a hat, you're going to be able to tell that Larry Bird is really, really good. Pick an 80s Edmonton game out of a hat, you're going to be able to tell that Gretzky is really, really good. Pick a 00s Laker game out of a hat, you're going to be able to tell that Kobe is really, really good. (**)

A single baseball game is almost the polar opposite, transmitting very little useful information about skill and quality, and a whole bunch of noise. And that, in a nutshell, is why baseball should not be construcing its playoffs in the way the other sports do.

(**) Kobe doesn't average 52.3 PPG over one 7-game stretch, then 8.4 over the next, the way baseball players do.

What you're missing is that these players are so broadly similar skillwise that every PA and every game ********IS******** driven by luck.

I'm not missing anything you ########## ########## ###########. Every PA and every game is some combination of luck and skill. Otherwise, the skill would never begin to control.

The playoffs are a combination of skill and luck, just like the regular season. The regular season, due its larger sample size, does a better job of separating skill from luck, which every goddamned person on this site knows, not just you. But your silly ass postseason = luck postulate is as moronic as those individuals who want to chalk it up to heart or integrity or clean living.

If you shove every variable under the broad luck umbrella, you've essentially neutered the term.

Just so you're clear, that actually doesn't respond to what I have written.

Your conclusion that skilled athletes vs. skilled athletes = luck and not skill is not supported by any kind of logic except your own classic copyrighted Smell Test of Obviousness.

Feliz vs Howie Kendrick and Torii Hunter adds up to one hit in 20 total PA. You might even be able to do that (I've seen you swing). If your point is these numbers add up to luck, as well as every other professional hitter who's flailed away against him - or not - is all luck, I don't really think your clue is lacking fog itself.

Ray -

A huge portion of full-season results are "lucky" by that recording, too. Detroit got lucky in the way they turned runs into wins (outperformed Pyth) and they got lucky having Cabrera and Verlander perform at the top of their projected ranges. Any team that made the playoffs by less than five games was just a standard deviation of luck, by that definition, from missing the playoffs. Injuries happen by luck a huge amount of the time, and they can cause 5-10 game swings easily.

There's no getting luck out of the game, by your definition of it, and over a full season the team with the best record is sometimes the "best" team, sometimes not. If you include injury luck, almost all of the "best" teams in baseball history have been blessed with great good fortune on that front. A healthy 2011 Red Sox club might have been the best team in baseball.

I don't really know where this talk of "luck" gets you. You can't get luck out of the game. You just have to choose, arbitrarily, a point at which you'll respect results which are driven in significant part by luck.

Now, wait, this isn't true. I mean, it plainly isn't true. If every PA was driven by luck, everyone would perform (more or less) the same (more or less) every year.

RB, I said "driven by" luck, not the complete result of luck.

I'm not missing anything you ########## ########## ###########.

I think you need to emphasize that more.

But your silly ass postseason = luck postulate is as moronic as those individuals who want to chalk it up to heart or integrity or clean living.

The postseason is driven by luck because the postseason doesn't provide us with enough time to see the skill separate itself out. That's what makes the postseason "pointless" in this regard, but every time I point that out, people tell me I'm wrong, and then they say "you're an idiot, we all know it's mostly luck," and then in the next breath they go back to arguing that skill really does play a substantial role in the postseason. It. Does. Not.

You can see this pretty easily. Take a single PA between two unidentified major league players, i.e., without knowing their names or anything anything about their performance records. Do you think you'll be able to tell from the result of that single PA who the better player is?

You cannot. I trust this is agreed.

Now expand on that a bit. Do you think you'll be able to tell from 4-7 games who the better team is? You cannot. It takes more time for the disparity in skill level to become apparent.

Again, this is completely obvious. It's hard to believe people still don't understand what they're seeing in the postseason, after all these years.

RB, I said "driven by" luck, not the complete result of luck.

To some extent we're at semantics here, but I don't think that's true. Luis Aparicio had (roughly) 11,000 PA, and had a neutralized .275/.325/.359 line. Reggie Jackson had (roughly) 11,000 PA and a neutralized .283/.380/.529 line. That's a huge difference. If they're "driven by" luck with skill only contributing, it seems like the range should be far narrower. And of course, that's comparing someone like Reggie to a player who had other skills (SBs, defense, etc.) to last a long time. It's even more pronounced when you compare it to the least of them.

To some extent we're at semantics here,

Not at all.

but I don't think that's true. Luis Aparicio had (roughly) 11,000 PA, and had a neutralized .275/.325/.359 line. Reggie Jackson had (roughly) 11,000 PA and a neutralized .283/.380/.529 line. That's a huge difference. If they're "driven by" luck with skill only contributing, it seems like the range should be far narrower. And of course, that's comparing someone like Reggie to a player who had other skills (SBs, defense, etc.) to last a long time. It's even more pronounced when you compare it to the least of them.

Now compare their lines from a random week in 1970. That's my point.

You can see this pretty easily. Take a single PA between two unidentified major league players, i.e., without knowing their names or anything anything about their performance records. Do you think you'll be able to tell from the result of that single PA who the better player is? You cannot. I trust this is agreed.

Wel, let's walk back to a specific thing you stated, however:

What you're missing is that these players are so broadly similar skillwise that every PA and every game ********IS******** driven by luck. (I will emphasize that more the next time if people hereafter fail to understand it.) It takes many, many PAs and many games for the skill to begin to control.

I'm going to assume that you don't consider 10 PA to be many, many PAs. Hunter is one hit for those 10 PAs vs. Feliz. Kendrick is zero hits for his 10 PAs. But what you are saying is - and please, correct me if I am wrong - those respective 10 PAs and the corresponding results are not indicative of any skill on the part of Feliz. Or, to be fair to your words, that those results are driven by luck, and not by the skill of Feliz.

It isn't heaving the ball 10 feet wide that's "bad luck," it's heaving the ball 10 feet wide in October.

And heaving the ball 10 feet wide in April might put you in a situation where your team misses the postseason by one game. That's no more (or less) bad luck than the same event in October; it's the combination of events good and bad, timing good and bad, talent at full strength vs talent at less than full strength that makes one team a WS winner and 29 others also-rans. Whether the number of games be five, or seven, or nine, or 162, there aren't enough games in there to keep variations in the timing of events from having an effect on the outcome, or to ensure that the team(s) that rise to the top are truly "better" than the teams that do not.

-- MWE

So if it was a 26-team tournament won by the Royals, you'd deem them unequivocally and without deconstruction, the deserving "World Champions" of the 2011 baseball season?

Can we please do this? This would be *awesome*.

Another thing to remember (which actually applies more to the NBA and NHL) is that team's themselves are only trying to maximize their regular season wins based on how it affects their chances to win the postseason tournament, and not in order to prove superior quality and skill over a large sample size. Granted, these goals overlap heavily in baseball given the scarcity of playoff spots, leading to people like Ray not understanding what they are seeing in the regular season. Why worry about determining the 'best' team based on some obsolete criteria of your own which the teams and players themselves are only trying to meet when it helps them get a world series championship?

I applaud Tony La Russa for being the greatest human scarecrow in baseball history.

I think the problem lies in trying to shoehorn the League and Cup competitions into one all-encompassing championship. International soccer federations realise that you can have multiple champions via different competitions in the same year, and seem OK with that.

Ray, I'm absolutely curious about a response to #90, hence the bump.

I'm going to assume that you don't consider 10 PA to be many, many PAs. Hunter is one hit for those 10 PAs vs. Feliz. Kendrick is zero hits for his 10 PAs. But what you are saying is - and please, correct me if I am wrong - those respective 10 PAs and the corresponding results are not indicative of any skill on the part of Feliz. Or, to be fair to your words, that those results are driven by luck, and not by the skill of Feliz.

Yes, they're driven by luck. Hunter and Kendrick are not .050 hitters. So why would we expect them to hit .050 off of Feliz if given more PAs against him?

But the broader point is that the playoffs are mostly between two good teams, say, 91 wins vs. 97 wins. Why do you think a 5 or 7 game series is going to reveal a separation between those two teams?

I'm going to assume that you don't consider 10 PA to be many, many PAs. Hunter is one hit for those 10 PAs vs. Feliz. Kendrick is zero hits for his 10 PAs. But what you are saying is - and please, correct me if I am wrong - those respective 10 PAs and the corresponding results are not indicative of any skill on the part of Feliz. Or, to be fair to your words, that those results are driven by luck, and not by the skill of Feliz.

Admittedly, I'm digging through B-R here, but Michael Brantley (to take the best example) is 3 for 6 against Feliz, with two doubles and 3 RBI. Does that mean that Feliz sucks? I believe that it does not mean that Feliz sucks; the way you ask the question implies that you think it does. Your contention here is sort of remarkable to me, really.

Or another way to put it is that baseball is a slightly loaded die. Reggie's die is more likely to come up 20, Aparicio's is more likely to come up 1, but as Ray says, over the course of 30 PAs in a typical week, the difference between the two is not large enough to conclusively determine which die is better. kill is not demonstrated in individual at-bats in a statistically significant way.

What you're missing is that these players are so broadly similar skillwise that every PA and every game ********IS******** driven by luck.

A better way to put it is that no individual plate appearance demonstrates skill in a statistically significant way. (Of course this is really what you meant anyway...)

Admittedly, I'm digging through B-R here, but Michael Brantley (to take the best example) is 3 for 6 against Feliz, with two doubles and 3 RBI. Does that mean that Feliz sucks? I believe that it does not mean that Feliz sucks; the way you ask the question implies that you think it does. Your contention here is sort of remarkable to me, really.

I rarely use this one, but, really? If you call up the batter vs. pitcher, Brantley is a clear exception that proves the rule. In fact, in the list of the top 50 players against him by PA, the only players with more than two hits are Brantley and Rajai Davis.

My point is that for a long list of 6 PA or more, against good, professional hitters, Feliz has come out very much ahead. If it's luck that he does so against Hunter and Kendrick, the idea that it is also luck that none of Aybar, Matsui, Pennington, Zobrist, Abreu, Berkman, Betemit, Butler, A. Cabrera, M. Cabrera, Cano, Cust, Granderson, Kennedy. Kennedy, Longoria, Raburn, Rodriguez, Suzuki, Teixeira, Wells, and Willingham (all 6 PA or more) have managed three hits is not tenable to me.

The idea that Mo Rivera can't shut down some random hitter over 5 PA doesn't mean he sucks, the countless people who couldn't get a bat on a ball over the same means Rivera was better, not lucky, and the same is true of Feliz, IMO.