Whether or not the #1 seed wins more WS than #2 is irrelevant regarding the theory. The #1 seeds on average could be far better than the #2 seeds are. The issue is whether they have a harder road to the WS, and, as a result, if the top 2 seeds are tied, whether its worth doing anything extra (start on guys on short rest etc.) to try and get that #1 seed instead of the #2.

Quote: Originally Posted By gman981981 on 12/07/2009Whether or not the #1 seed wins more WS than #2 is irrelevant regarding the theory. The #1 seeds on average could be far better than the #2 seeds are. The issue is whether they have a harder road to the WS, and, as a result, if the top 2 seeds are tied, whether its worth doing anything extra (start on guys on short rest etc.) to try and get that #1 seed instead of the #2

Actually, it isn't an "issue." The best you could rightfully call it is "wild fantasy" or maybe "pipedream." His efforts at supporting the idea were ludicrous, as a number of posters have pointed out. That the thread has gone this far is a testament to the gullibility of some of the participants.

Actually, it could still be an issue. Though his math wasn't perfect or very clear, what he was trying to say still has some merit.

Basically, ignoring match ups, if the best wildcard team has a better record than the 3rd best division winner, it is best to finish with the #2 seed than the #1 since the top wildcard team will be seeded 5th, and the 3rd best division winner 3rd. I'm not going to do the research to see how often this occurs, but it should happen more often than 50%.

By my math, if the quality of teams is random i.e. uninfluenced by success within each division, the probability of the 2nd best team coming from a team outside #1s division is 12/15. Given that this occurs, the probability of the #3 being outside of the #1 and #2 divisions is 8/14. Multiplying these gives you 16/35.

There's a 3 in 15 chance the 2nd best team is in the same division as the #1, and a 12 in 35 chance that the 3rd best team is not in the same division as the #1 or #2. So the probability that the top wildcard team is better than the 3rd best division winner is 19/35, or 54.28%. The math makes sense to me, but I'm a little worried I'm missing something....that being said I'm quite sure that there is a greater than 50% chance the 3rd best division winner is worse than the top wildcard team.

Before you dismiss it as ludicrous, why don't you think about it a little more? Or do you just take comfort knowing that no one really listens to you since you are an alias, and deliberately sign into a separate account to post on the forums, or have no active teams and were a terrible owner when you were active?

Quote: Originally Posted By gman981981 on 12/07/2009Actually, it could still be an issue. Though his math wasn't perfect or very clear, what he was trying to say still has some merit.

Basically, ignoring match ups, if the best wildcard team has a better record than the 3rd best division winner, it is best to finish with the #2 seed than the #1 since the top wildcard team will be seeded 5th, and the 3rd best division winner 3rd. I'm not going to do the research to see how often this occurs, but it should happen more often than 50%.

By my math, if the quality of teams is random i.e. uninfluenced by success within each division, the probability of the 2nd best team coming from a team outside #1s division is 12/15. Given that this occurs, the probability of the #3 being outside of the #1 and #2 divisions is 8/14. Multiplying these gives you 16/35.

There's a 3 in 15 chance the 2nd best team is in the same division as the #1, and a 12 in 35 chance that the 3rd best team is not in the same division as the #1 or #2. So the probability that the top wildcard team is better than the 3rd best division winner is 19/35, or 54.28%. The math makes sense to me, but I'm a little worried I'm missing something....that being said I'm quite sure that there is a greater than 50% chance the 3rd best division winner is worse than the top wildcard team.

Before you dismiss it as ludicrous, why don't you think about it a little more? Or do you just take comfort knowing that no one really listens to you since you are an alias, and deliberately sign into a separate account to post on the forums, or have no active teams and were a terrible owner when you were active

Sorry. Incorrect. The chance that the 3rd best record is in the same division as the top 2 seeds is 6/14. So 8/14, the 3rd best record is the 3rd seed.

Quote: Originally posted by gman981981 on 12/07/2009Basically, ignoring match ups, if the best wildcard team has a better record than the 3rd best division winner, it is best to finish with the #2 seed than the #1

not necessarily.

suppose division winner #3 wins 91 games, division winner #4 wins 75, wild card 1 wins 92 and wild card 2 wins 91.

the #2 seed is going to play a 91 win team regardless, and the #1 seed is going to play either a 92 or a 75 win team. in this case, i would definitely rather have the #1 seed.

really, at the end of the day, i don't think it really makes a big difference in terms to path to the world series.

Yes, I didn't write this but it obviously matters which team advances. I'm not going to run through the probabilities of the 3 and 6 being on average better than the 4 and 5, and it matters what % of the time each team wins. You wouldn't always rather face the 3/6 or 4/5 matchup with the highest average.....personally I'd rather be lined up to face the winner of a 87/87 win matchup over a 94/75 because I'd think that 94 would win. Its very possible that #2 is better than #1, even if its by only the slightest of margins. You'd probably have to look at it on an individual basis anyways, and if HBD follows MLB I don't think there's much to change.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Nope. Gman was right.

It gets a bit slippery, but for the 3rd division winner to have the 3rd best record, you need to have

1) the 2nd best record in a different division from the 1st best record (12/15)
AND
2) the 3rd best record in a different division from 1st and 2nd best record (8/14)

multiply them together and you get 96/210 = 45.7%...of course this is the opposite of what we're looking for, so we subtract our result from 100% and get gman's 54.3%.

you're assuming that the 2 best records are in different divisions- you can't do that.

of course the good news is that we can't really do anything with this calculation. hooray numbers!

Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 12/08/2009Nope. Gman was right.

It gets a bit slippery, but for the 3rd division winner to have the 3rd best record, you need to have

1) the 2nd best record in a different division from the 1st best record (12/15)
AND
2) the 3rd best record in a different division from 1st and 2nd best record (8/14)

multiply them together and you get 96/210 = 45.7%...of course this is the opposite of what we're looking for, so we subtract our result from 100% and get gman's 54.3%.

you're assuming that the 2 best records are in different divisions- you can't do that.

of course the good news is that we can't really do anything with this calculation. hooray numbers

Its late, I am tired. And I should not have opened my mouth. Totally missed something I should know. My apologies to gman

This thread is tiresome. You know what? Often times in real life one team gets an easier road to the championship than a team with a better record. So what? You want it easy? If you have the better team then win. If not, then get lucky or lose. Make the playoffs, beat everyone you play, and you're champion.

Quote: Originally posted by CoachRed on 12/08/2009Make the playoffs, beat everyone you play, and you're champion.

Do you have anything that supports this?

Couple of times it's worked for me.