The REAL Reason Why Wild Card Teams Do Well in the MLB

[Reggie Miller]

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives...the_angels.php


Wild Card teams have been wildly successful since 1995.

"A wildcard team has made it to the World Series 9 times in the last 13 years, claiming 4 world championships including 3 of the last 6."

In the past, I had attributed this to the WC team being forced to play meaningful games well into September, while the team with the best record may not have played a meaningful game in almost a month (see 2008 Angels).

The truth is the WC teams are often just plain better.

As Vin noted in the comments to this article,

"Tie for best record: 1
2nd best: 9
3rd best: 10
4th best: 7

Though the difference is small, it's worth noting that more wild card teams have been the second-best team in the league than the fourth-best. At any rate, it's abundantly clear that the wild card is not necessarily the true "fourth seed" of the postseason - more often than not, it isn't. Of course, the better team has still lost a disproportionate number of postseason series, but the difference between the best team and the wild is typically quite small."

This explanation works for me.

[Extra Stout]

I've often wondered if the makeup of the team has something to do with it. In the regular season, a team built for offense can rack up a bunch of runs against mediocre pitching on bad teams. In the postseason, teams are facing more elite pitching and some of these big-slugging teams suddenly struggle to score. A team with a middling offense but three elite starting pitchers, or maybe two great starters and a lockdown bullpen, may only win 85 to 90 games in the regular season, but in a playoff series might be perfectly built to win 4 out of 7.

[Jimcs50]

I've often wondered if the makeup of the team has something to do with it. In the regular season, a team built for offense can rack up a bunch of runs against mediocre pitching on bad teams. In the postseason, teams are facing more elite pitching and some of these big-slugging teams suddenly struggle to score. A team with a middling offense but three elite starting pitchers, or maybe two great starters and a lockdown bullpen, may only win 85 to 90 games in the regular season, but in a playoff series might be perfectly built to win 4 out of 7.

Sounds like my Redsox.

[Reggie Miller]

I've often wondered if the makeup of the team has something to do with it. In the regular season, a team built for offense can rack up a bunch of runs against mediocre pitching on bad teams. In the postseason, teams are facing more elite pitching and some of these big-slugging teams suddenly struggle to score. A team with a middling offense but three elite starting pitchers, or maybe two great starters and a lockdown bullpen, may only win 85 to 90 games in the regular season, but in a playoff series might be perfectly built to win 4 out of 7.

I read that and my first thought was: 2005 Astros.

The problem with that example is that the Astros' pitching then had their brains beat out by a true AL offense.

Sometimes, the 2004-2006 Postseasons make me think the whole thing is purely random. The 2007 Postseason was the first to go "according to the script" for some time now.

[FromWayDowntown]

The 2007 Postseason was the first to go "according to the script" for some time now.

The Rockies were following the script last year?

[Reggie Miller]

The Rockies were following the script last year?

Not so much, but the Red Sox demolished them, which was according to script, as it were. The Rockies got red-hot just in time to make it interesting. (I was working from the standpoint that either the Indians or Red Sox would have crushed any of the NL teams.)

[bostonguy]

Sounds like my Redsox.

As long as we arent trailing big in a 7 game series (0-3 or 1-3). It worked the previous 2 le runs but they cant afford to get in that kind of hole again. Playing with fire like that this postseason will burn Boston badly.

[Purple & Gold]

I thought it was because of run differential.