How much of a crapshoot are the MLB playoffs really?

[LLJ]

Since 2006, five teams have won the WS. Cards twice, Bosox twice, Giants 3x, Yankees and Phillies once.

Now, it must be said that the Cards, Giants and Bosox didn't have the exact same rosters when they double or triple dipped. But this trend bears examining and (imo) still casts doubt on the oft-repeated belief that the MLB playoffs is COMPLETELY random. Obviously, some organizations have found some sort of formula or system to move the needle in their favour when the games start to matter. But what are these elements that hold up better in the playoffs?

It would seem that the belief of the MLB playoffs being a total crapshoot started in the early 2000s. From 2000-2005, 6 teams won the World Series, but since 2006 there have been more repeat champions (although no back to back champs).

I believe that luck in the MLB playoffs plays a larger factor than any other pro sport. But I'm convinced that some organizations are better at constructing teams that slightly move the needle in their favour when the games count. I don't think the Cards, Bosox and Giants winning multiple titles in the span of a couple years to be "luck". I think they've found some kind of formula--or have a formula with their core players and don't realize it. I'm just not sure how they do it exactly. You could argue the BoSox simply have bought their talent, like the Yankees, but AFAIK the Cards and Giants aren't the top spenders (though they still seem to spend decently relative to the rest of the league).

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=betweenthenumbers/billybeane/060405

This old ESPN article, "Why don't the A's win in October?" was one of those 2000s articles that tried to find common patterns in WS champs. Although not a hard and fast rule, this article proposed that a pattern emerged thusly:

• Closer's performance
• Pitcher strikeout rate
• Defense

were the most common ingredients for playoff success. These also happen to be the ingredients that stand up better and are less prone to typical MLB hot and cold streaks. But as always in MLB playoffs, there are always exceptions (Buehrle for example was never a strikeout pitcher but was a big part of the ChiSox dominant playoff run in 2005).

Google brings up 90% of articles saying the MLB playoffs being mostly a crapshoot. I'm convinced that is mostly true but I'm not convinced everyone is on an even playing field once they get to the playoffs. I think certain teams have existing cores or have constructed rosters that are less prone to the effects of cold streaks.

What do you guys think? Is it merely about being the hottest team going into October or can you really move the needle in your favour?

[Schad]

Since 2006, five teams have won the WS. Cards twice, Bosox twice, Giants 3x, Yankees and Phillies once.

Now, it must be said that the Cards, Giants and Bosox didn't have the exact same rosters when they double or triple dipped. But this trend bears examining and (imo) still casts doubt on the oft-repeated belief that the MLB playoffs is COMPLETELY random. Obviously, some organizations have found some sort of formula or system to move the needle in their favour when the games start to matter. But what are these elements that hold up better in the playoffs?

Five winners in nine years isn't exactly evidence of a formula; it's not a terribly atypical distribution when many of the same teams have lottery tickets each year. The Cards made them six times in that span, the Sox four times, the Yankees six times, and the Phillies five times. What mostly differentiates those five is their record in the World Series itself: 9-2, with seven of the losers being drawn from the pool of non-winners. If making the World Series is largely a crapshoot, as evidenced by the number of non-winners to have made it (often defeating past winners along the way) it stands to reason that the 9-2 mark is probably more noise than signal.

[LLJ]

It stands to reason that the more often you make the playoffs during a given stretch of years, the more likely you will come away with at least 1 WS appearance or win, yes. But how about the teams that made the playoffs multiple times during a stretch and didn't get to the WS? Why didn't they? Conversely, when the Yankees won 3 straight in the late 90s, was that luck that they won 3 straight, or did they simply have better elite talent than everyone else whether they won 100 games or 93 in the regular season? I think in a real crapshoot, the odds of a team winning 3 straight is ridiculously low. Obviously randomness doesn't necessarily mean equality--I don't expect luck shakes out that every team that becomes a contender will get its day in the sun, but I think what I'm wondering is if every playoff team really is on a level playing field come the playoffs--which in my mind is the real definition of 'crapshoot'. Because if there is any evidence--ANY evidence at all-- that better talent, or teams with certain TYPES of talent or a team constructed a certain way have a slight edge in the playoffs, it defeats that theory that the playoffs are a COMPLETE crapshoot.