On The Super Bowl And The Sanctity Of Baseball's Regular Season
by Matthew Kory on Feb 6, 2012 7:01 AM EST
in Analysis
Email
PrintAs the Super Bowl came to an end last night, I found myself upset. It was an odd feeling for me, one I wasn't expecting because I'm not a Patriots fan. I grew up outside Washington DC so I'm saddled with the inept Redskins, so it wasn't the Patriots losing that made me mad. As a Redskins fan, I have to dislike the Giants, an obligation I take seriously, but even the Giants happiness wasn't what fouled my mood.
What upset me was the destruction of the sanctity of the regular season. By any objective measure, the 9-7 Giants were not as good a team as the 13-3 Patriots. If it weren't for the fact that the Giants played in an inept division populated with inept teams (and I should know, I watched one of 'em every weekend) they'd have never been in the playoffs to begin with. The Patriots scored 119 more points than the Giants, and allowed 58 fewer. The Giants actually allowed more points than they scored this season. The Patriots were third in the NFL in point differential. The Giants were ninth... in the NFC. In the NFL they were 18th. By that one measure, the Super Bowl Champs were below the median, meaning more teams were better than the Champs than were worse. What does it say about the regular season of a sport whose crowned champion is not remotely close to the best team that season?
To me it says the regular season doesn't mean much at all. The playoffs have taken on a larger import over the past couple of decades in all sports, but if you think about it for a moment, given the random nature of small sample sizes, the regular season is the true measure of how good a team is. The playoffs give us a Champion but the regular season shows us who the best team is. The playoffs are for show.
Unlike most Americans, I'm not much for underdogs. I like the best team to win most of the time. To me, it means we weren't all wasting our time watching the regular season. Sure, it's fun sometimes in the NCAA men's basketball tournament when Donkey State beats Duke in the first round, but there's a reason I don't spend huge chunks of emotional energy on college basketball. As amazing as the athletes are, and as difficult as their chosen sport is, the outcome has a level of randomness that I'm not comfortable with.
Considering all the time and energy I put into following the Red Sox (and, sadly, the Redskins) the regular season should have weight. Playoffs should be an achievement for excellence in the regular season. Good teams should be rewarded for smart decisions and sustained good play while bad teams should be penalized. Coasting weakly through the schedule should not be rewarded with a chance at pro sports immortality.
Back in 2006 when the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series, I felt as I do now. Like now, it had nothing to do with any dislike of the team, its players, or the city of St. Louis (I've heard they have a very efficient highway system!). Instead, it had everything to do with the Cardinals winning 83 games and proving themselves to be, throughout the course of the most comprehensive regular season in pro sports, a mediocre baseball team undeserving of reaching the next level let alone being crowned World Series Champs. To this day, if you want to get my hackles up, mention that team.
Fun fact: the Cardinals have won two World Series in the last six years. The Red Sox have had an equal or better record and missed the playoffs in both those years.
I bring all this up mostly out of frustration. I don't have a grand solution to this problem of playoff prominence over a far more extensive and complete regular season, and even if I did it would stand the same chance of happening as I have of making it through next week without eating yummy delicious pizza.
I do think last night's game highlights a problem that the NFL isn't interested in hearing about though. But in a way, their version of the problem is much smaller. Professional baseball's version is much larger, angrier, and spittle-emitting. When you ask fans to come out to the ball park, spend hundreds of dollars on food, beer, and souvenirs not to mention parking and tickets, those thousands of games MLB is selling have to have some value. I mean, don't they? Or, maybe they don't. Would we all attend 162 Red Sox games at the same price if every team made the playoffs and the only thing up for grab was seeding and home field? It's unclear, but slowly, incrementally, that is the direction baseball is headed in. Another one of those steps in that direction is adding a new second Wild Card* team.
All professional sports leagues want more playoffs. Simply put, more playoffs equals more money. But, to believe in what they’re selling, to watch, to listen, and to attend hundreds of games a year, those games have to mean something. The way things are structured in the NFL now, the regular season simply cuts off the excessively unsuitable teams and leaves behind the good, the great, and the mediocre all in one hat. If baseball ever gets to that point, it'll turn the regular season into a six month long Spring Training. As wonderful as that sounds to my ears now, I know nobody wants it or, maybe more importantly, deserves it.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I feel your pain
…which is why I gave up on football years ago. I, too, am from outside of D.C., formerly a Redskins fan, truly a Red Sox fan. And the frustration that you express rings quite true of football. However, baseball has generally had a season that does very well to minimize the random events that can shape the season of other sports. But, bring this “one game wildcard” thing into the picture, and this random element thing gets dropped into the system in a way that I think we will all grow to loathe within three years.
I wouldn't be as frustrated with the Giants win if the playoffs were seeded by record and not by division winners.
If they had run through the Saints in NO in the first round, then the Packers in Lambeau and whichever of the Lions/Falcons/49ers In Detroit/Atlanta/San Francisco that came out of the other side of the bracket it would be okay. Because they won their division though they got to play the Falcons at home which, IMO gave them a lot of momentum. If the Saints play the Giants in New Orleans then the playoffs shake out differently.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
But the Pats had it much easier.
They had to play one of the worst playoff teams of recent vintage and a home game against the Ravens who stunk on the road all year. The Giants beat 3 teams with 10+ wins including road wins over a 15 and 13 win team.
The fact is it is had to say how good the Pats really were this year. They didn’t have a single victory against a team with a winning record all year until a fortunate win over the Ravens in the AFC title game, lucked out against Dallas, played a Vickless Eagles and otherwise played the easiest schedule in the AFC. It is not like last year when they played a majorly tuff set of teams and killed them. The Giants had more injuries than even the Pats and played a much tougher schedule.
The Giants winning this year is less of an affront then the Cards two recent WS titles.
And I love the Pats
But they had one win all season against a team over .500, and it took a missed field goal to get the one. The Pats probably aren’t as good as their record made them look, either. (Thanks, defense. Even if you showed up last night.)
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 6, 2012 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
Yes-I said that in my post.
They just didn’t seem like that great a team this year…and that is why the Vegas line and the betting volume didn’t see the Pats as better than the Giants.
In my rush to agree with you
I missed that bit
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 6, 2012 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
Small sample size works both ways. As long as the NFL is only 16 games (and I do not think it should be more) you’re not really going to know how good a team is at the end of the year. It is just the way that game is.
Quantum Woodworking: Hand crafted pens, bottle stoppers, bowls and more.
Check out our blog
But they deserved to have it easier
by virtue of playing better over the regular season. If the playoffs had been seeded by record, things would have been a lot different. The Pats would have played at home the winner of the Bengals/Texans game in Houston, and the Ravens would have played at home the winner of a Steelers/Broncos game in Pittsburgh. It probably wouldn’t have been as different as the NFC playoffs with Wild Card games in New Orleans and Atlanta instead of New Orleans and New York.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 6, 2012 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
But that missses the point
that the Pats didn’t play better. The only direct measure was that the Pats lost a home game to the Giants during the regular season. The Giants also beat the Bills (who beat the Patriots). The Giants played a much tougher schedule-having to play the 49ers, Packers, Patriots and Saints during the regular season. The only good team that the Patriots played were the Steelers who pretty much dismantled them. In a sport with only 16 games and a totally unbalanced schedule W-L record is not a good way to say “they played better.”
Okay
but argue to me that the Lions and Falcons deserved to play on the road, while the Giants did not, both teams had tougher schedules than New York (Detroit’s was 4th hardest overall, not sure where ATL fell) and yet both teams came out with 10-6 records, better than New York, and still had to play road games.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
Giants had 3rd hardest schedule
by DVOA, Detroit 16th and Atlanta 17th…
Detroit played all but one of the NFC playoff teams
Plus Oakland, Dallas, San Diego, and Chicago, all of whom would have been playoff teams if not for Detroit beating them. They played Green Bay twice, and Chicago both times BEFORE Jay Cutler went out for the season.
Looking at who the Giants had to play, I don’t think their schedules are equitable.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
DVOA
Says you are wrong and that despite 8-8 records the Dallas twice and Philly twice were much tougher outs than the likes of the Bears or Oakland…
DVOA
is including games from the Bears and Raiders when they had Not-Carson Palmer and Not-Jay Cutler. It’s also including games from the Chargers from before December when they went batshit crazy.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
umm ... Giants also lost to the Redskins
and Seattle.
‘Ball ain’t round.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
by mmmmm on Feb 6, 2012 4:07 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Sure
but that does not change the fact that they played a much harder schedule-even more so if you include their playoff games. By DVOA the Pats had the 26th hardest ranked schedule (which does not even include the fact that Young was the QB when they played the Eagles) while the Giants had the 3rd ranked schedule. It is a huge difference.
Playing 6 games against the NFC East sort of ruins that
unless you believe that division was the hardest in football. For my money I’m split between the NFC South and NFC North as to who was the toughest division in football.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
NFC East was a joke this year
Eagles and Cowboys were supposed to be SB contenders and were nothing, the Redskins led early and the Giants were the definition of mediocrity all year.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
You guys
Need to embrace advanced stats in football as you do in baseball. They all say you are both wrong. And regardless even dummy metrics say the Pats had a joke schedule and faired poorly against the few decent teams they played.
I'm not sure calling something an 'advanced stat' makes it automatically reliable
when we are talking about the realm of ‘strength of schedule’, no matter how you slice and dice it, it is SSS.
The DVOA rankings can swing wildly based on single game outcomes.
Consider that at least a couple of the ‘mediocre’ teams that the Patriots played would have had above .500 records were it not for … the Patriots. Also, that several of their opponents had winning records when the Patiots played them.
In the NFL, the ball ain’t round and there is no getting away from the fact that luck is a huge factor in winning not only single games, but indeed seasons. The sample size of an NFL season and and an NFL game are both small.
Other sports like Baseball, Hockey & Basketball try to account for ‘luck’ by playing best-of series. Doesn’t always work, but a huge improvement over what happens in football.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
Really?
when all of them pain the same picture I tend to believe it. The Patriots joke of a schedule was a SoS of 1.4 3rd worst in the NFL.
The Giants was 2.0-BY FAR toughest in the league (much much more so than the Lions or Falcons) and this is not DVOA it is simply a linear regression based on the simple rating system. Burks number paint the same picture. I hate the Giants but any way you slice it-their schedule was leagues harder than the Patriots (which was a joke) and harder than the Lions or the Falcons.
Also your point about luck makes me think you don’t know much about these stats-while not perfect they attempt (in a reasonable way in my mind) to not base things on outcome but on play value in context.
However I do agree about small sample
issues-but that is simply the nature of a sport with a small number of games.
SSS is the point
You can have a reasonable model that produces what looks like a reasonable ranking. But it can still end up meaning nothing in real terms because the stochastic variance is so large. With only 16 samples, it only takes a tiny handful of in-game oddities (and injuries) to swing entire seasons.
The additional quirk to trying to make statements about SOS is that the teams mutate so much through the course of the season. The Giants themselves are a great example of this as they got so many key players back late in the season. Many teams go the opposite way. The Patriots roster also went through massive change and they looked stronger as the season ended. But were they as strong & healthy in the SB as they were just two weeks prior?
Gronk’s ankle says, “Hi”
The SB ends up being a contest between the two teams that show up on SB Sunday. How much they resemble the teams in the regular season is hard to say.
As you say, it is just the nature of the NFL. SSS.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
by mmmmm on Feb 6, 2012 8:11 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
It is not the entire point
or you could just as well say that football is simply random. It is not-perhaps the SB as a single game is much more subject to random stuff, but by this time teams have played 19 or 20 games in a sport where a good team beats a bad one 75-80% of the time (unlike baseball). Things like DVOA chart every play and don’t base good or bad based on W-L. Once you break things down into plays (as opposed to games) the sample does not look so small. That is where it makes sense to say an 8 win team like the Cowboys are “better” than you think but lost a bunch of games by random stuff (as we know from their losses to the Patriots, Jets, Giants and Cardinals).
Anything can happen in the SB-but enough football was played up until that point to show that the difference in record between the Giants and Patriots was more of an illusion of imbalanced schedule than anything else.
Where it does, indeed become the point
is in assigning too much weight to ‘strength of schedule’ rankings that are ephemeral at best. If you played the Bills early in the season it was a different team than what you would have played late in the season.
Similarly, the Giants team that was at one point 5-7 was not the same team that played in the SuperBowl. They were clearly a healthier and better team. But even so, they were the beneficiaries of some tremendous luck in all their playoff games.
Certainly football is not completely random. Else you would not see the consistent W-L outcome, season after season, of a coach like BB. But the outcome of any given game is definitely highly sensitive to random factors. Especially in a game as close as this one.
Back in 2007, the Patriots had the best record (undefeated) AND unquestionably a ridiculously hard regular season SOS based on all most rankings. But that meant nothing as luck factors dominated the outcome of that game.
Trying to disconnect DVOA from W-L is dubious – just because it is tallying the stats from within the games doesn’t divorce it from W-L at all. The team’s that won do, after all, tend to have more successful plays. But a lot of those successful outcomes still hinge on luck.
Here’s some food for thought:
The Patriots and Giants both played 19 games. The Giants finished 12-7. In their 7 losses, they were outscored 218-138 for an average loss margin of over 10 points. The Patriots finished 15-4. In their 4 losses they were outscored 104-85 for an average loss margin of less than 5 points.
The SuperBowl title goes to the Giants because they were able to beat the Patriots for the last of those 4 losses, and indeed, beat them twice, each time by 4 points.
Redskins fans, who had a miserable season can of course take solace in the fact that they beat the Giants twice, by 14 and 13 points.
Random? Not entirely. But damn large part of it.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
Likewise teams that were excellent until injuries hurt their DVOA rankings
like the Bears, who were playoff contenders until Jay Cutler and Matt Forte went down.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11
I don’t need to know anything else. It was a significantly average division, especially considering some of the offseason upgrades that were made. The Giants might have had a tough schedule, but look at over half of their loses, Redskins x2, and both the Seahawks and Eagles at home, they lost to some of the cupcakes on that schedule. The Eagles “dream team” was an epic disaster in scope with the Red Sox 2011 season.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
an 8-8
team like the Cowboys or Eagles can be much better than a team like the Lions or Falcons with 10 wins. You are saying wins are the only thing that matters in determining how good a team is, which is crazy. I can just as easily say the Giants beat the Patriots, twice, and hence were better, neither makes much sense. But the fact is that the Patriots faced the following teams with a winning record; Giants, Pittsburgh, Ravens. And that is in 19 games. That fact alone should tell you all you need to know about their schedule. How did they fare against those teams? 1-3 with the one win by the grace of Lee Evans. And only one of those games was a road game. They were a paper tiger team. Period.
I watched every Eagles game
…they weren’t better than the Lions or Falcons.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
You say this
having seen how many Lions or Falcons games? Burke’s team efficiency places the Eagles as better than either, while DVOA and SRS place the Eagles as better than the Falcons. So three independent analyses say the Eagles > Falcons while all three place them also close to or better than the Lions. I will take that over your eyes any day of the week.
A few of each.
Even if I hadn’t seem them, I know they were better than the Eagles, the Eagles were a travesty to football this season. I bet most of their positive numbers in advanced stats come from the last games of the season, games that due to the short nature of the NFL season, really meant nothing because they played so poorly in the first half that they were pretty much already knocked out of the playoffs by anyone looking at them realistically. They played well when they were absolutely backed into a corner and spent the first half resting on laurels they hadn’t earned, they were not better than the Lions or Falcons.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
I watched every Lions game
they were miles and miles ahead of the Eagles and Cowboys.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
And before you start with the "well how many Cowboys games did you watch?"
The answer is ten, including the Cowboys/Lions game. My brother is a big Jason Witten fan, and I like to mock him when they lose.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
Plus with all the dream team coverage, you didn't even need to watch the Eagles to know that they sucked.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
I think between the two of us we could probably say that a healthy Lions team is better than any team in the East.
Including the Giants.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 6, 2012 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
The Curse Should Have Ended in 2007?
I know you’re aware that the Red Sox ended the curse in a year they were the wild card team. If the regular season had been more important, the Sox wouldn’t have been “rewarded with a chance at pro sports immortality.”
I don’t think you’re complaining about our 2004 WS win, but it’s not obvious to me how you would draw the difference. The way I see it, either you’re a purist who thinks that the World Series should be between the team from each league with the best record, or you accept that anything can happen in the playoffs (not just the Cardinals, but many more, including the 1987 Twins).
I don't mind having one wild card
But I definitely want seeding based on overall record.
I don’t see why an 87 win team should get home field advantage over the 90 win wild card.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
I'm not sure what you mean by this
In 2004, the Red Sox won 98 games. They had the second-best record in the AL and the third-best record in all of baseball. A playoff system should involve only the best teams. The ‘04 Sox were 6 games better than the winners of the other two divisions. The WC isn’t the problem. The problem is the divisional system is inherently biased because there are tougher and weaker divisions.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 6, 2012 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
Then I'll try again
“A playoff system should involve only the best teams.”
Well sure, but what are the best teams? Assuming one doesn’t favor eliminating the World Series, you have to have league champions (though I suppose one could propose the radical notion of pitting the WS between the two teams with the best records, even if they’re in the same league). Anything other than automatically awarding the league championship to the best team in each league diminishes the value of the regular season. If you’re ok with a playoff rather than giving it to the best team in the league, then all that’s at issue is the degree of diminution. And I can’t say that I understand the argument that one’s result-oriented personal opinion of where to draw the line (this team in one league wasn’t good enough to make it because a team in the other league had a better record; or this team that won only x games shouldn’t make it because to make the playoffs a team should win at least y games) should be the standard.
EPL and soccer
this is on of the major things I have found so enjoyable about European soccer. There is no playoffs in primary league play. You have 18-20 teams and you play them everyone once at home and once on the road. The best team wins and in most leagues the worst teams get demoted. You also have Continental qualifiers so that gives almost every team something to play for and so no push overs in the last week.
I know Americans might never accept relegation and the no playoff system, but the system has so many reasons to watch games and the league winner usually deserves to be the winner. Cup winners might be someone who got lucky, but that is why they are cup competitions.
by Troy D Patterson on Feb 6, 2012 9:33 AM EST reply actions
I was talking on Pride of Detroit about a sports league I wanted to create that uses this system.
Every country in the league creates a roster of around 40 guys, the best athletes they can get their hands on. Then, those teams travel around the world and play each other team, once at home and once on the road. The home team hosts a game of the team sport their country is famous for. America plays american football, brazil plays soccer, ireland plays hurling, so on and so forth. There can be no overlap in sports unless the rules are drastically different (aussie rules vs american football).
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
In the BPL
There are also tournements (the FA Cup, Carling Cup).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 6, 2012 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
Good post
The expansion of the playoffs in baseball—whether this year or next—will make me a casual fan. I don’t see the point of investing time and money over a six-month season to watch a one-game playoff or see inferior teams in the post-season—whether they are winners of weak divisions or the second WC.
While I’d prefer to see a balanced schedule with the two or four best teams in the playoffs, I didn’t have a problem with the system that was in place last year. Adding more teams cheapens the regular season.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
I'm more of a journey than the destination guy
Losing in the playoffs is a lot easier for me to take than missing them.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 6, 2012 10:29 AM EST up reply actions
Any league needs a method of selecting a champion, obvioulsy
I’m fine with the playoff system in football and I am a lifelong Patriots fan. As a result of the Patriots outstanding season, they were awarded a first round bye (a big deal) and home field throughout the playoffs. I have no doubt the best teams make the playoffs, and then it comes down to how the teams play in the playoff games. With single game eliminations, the “any given Sunday” and randomness factors do arise.
Baseball, with the long season, does a very good job of selecting the best teams for the playoffs. Teams that have very good seasons and clinch early have an advantage of setting up pitching and usually home field advantage. Multiple game series also tend to less the “randomness” factor. What I don’t like is the 5 and now single game playoffs/play-in games, as they increase the likelyhood of a potentially lesser team advancing. 100 win teams having to face an 83 win team in a five game series seems a bit unfair. I would like to see 7 game series so each team can use their full pitching staff.
Yeah - I am very much down on the one-game playoff.
The RS are going to get screwed the most by that.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
