Buyers and Sellers Based on Playoff Odds
The decision to buy or sell at the July 31st trade deadline has become more complicated with the addition of a second wild card. Two extra teams now play one post-season game, and the lure of that opportunity combined with the “anything can happen in October” mindset means that teams are reluctant to punt a season that isn’t already dead in the water.
However, with three days left until trades require passing through waivers, the line of demarcation between contender and pretender has been pretty clearly drawn. Here are Cool Standings’ playoff odds for each team in Major League Baseball:
| American | DIV | WC | POFF |
|---|---|---|---|
| St. Louis | 64.4 | 34.3 | 98.7 |
| Atlanta | 97.1 | 0.8 | 97.9 |
| Pittsburgh | 24.2 | 68.8 | 93.0 |
| Boston | 50.2 | 41.2 | 91.4 |
| Oakland | 86.2 | 4.8 | 90.9 |
| Detroit | 79.3 | 10.5 | 89.7 |
| Tampa Bay | 42.5 | 46.5 | 89.0 |
| Cincinnati | 11.4 | 74.6 | 86.0 |
| Los Angeles | 63.4 | 3.6 | 67.0 |
| Cleveland | 17.7 | 27.4 | 45.0 |
| Baltimore | 6.0 | 33.7 | 39.8 |
| Arizona | 28.3 | 5.3 | 33.5 |
| Texas | 12.7 | 15.3 | 28.0 |
| New York Yankees | 1.3 | 11.9 | 13.2 |
| Kansas City | 3.0 | 5.7 | 8.7 |
| Washington | 2.2 | 5.9 | 8.1 |
| Colorado | 6.4 | 1.6 | 8.0 |
| Chicago Cubs | 0.1 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Anaheim | 0.8 | 1.7 | 2.5 |
| New York Mets | 0.3 | 1.4 | 1.7 |
| San Diego | 1.0 | 0.3 | 1.3 |
| San Francisco | 0.9 | 0.1 | 1.0 |
| Philadelphia | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| Seattle | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Toronto | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| Minnesota | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Chicago White Sox | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Milwaukee | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Miami | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Houston | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
There are nine clear buyers, each with at least a 67% chance of reaching the post-season based on Cool Standings data — which, it should be noted, isn’t perfect, but even systems taking forecasts and depth charts into account aren’t going to produce numbers that are much different — and a strong enough roster to believe that their current place in the standings is sustainable. For the top nine clubs listed there, anything short of a playoff berth will be considered a disappointment. They’re good teams in prime position to play in October, and most of them have pretty good shots at winning their division, which is now of even greater importance given the two wild card system.
After the Big Nine, there’s a bit of a gray area. The Indians and Orioles have solid enough playoff odds to justify making a run, but in both cases, those are heavily skewed towards the wild card side of the ledger, and the wild card is a bit of a trap. Giving up significant future talent for the right to play a single elimination game, and then enter the division series at a significant disadvantage even if you do win, is probably not worth it. If you just sort by division odds instead of playoff odds, then the Orioles have about the same chance as the Rockies, which shows that their position is a little more complicated.
The Rangers, Diamondbacks, and Yankees are also in the gray area, where you could justify both buying and standing pat. Arizona should probably be the most aggressive of the three, given that nearly all of their chances of making the playoffs come from winning the NL West, and thus would result in an automatic entry into the division series. The Yankees have a minimal chance of winning the NL East but could still capture a Wild Card spot, but again, how much future value should a team give up for the right to play a win-or-go-home game?
From the bubble group, I’d suggest that Arizona, Cleveland, and Texas act as buyers, while Baltimore and New York should probably not mortgage their futures even though they are realistic wild card contenders. If we add the Diamondbacks, Indians, and Rangers to the Big Nine, then you have 12 buyers, six in each league. Everyone else, realistically, should be at least entertaining offers for their free-agents-to-be, and in many cases, should probably be even more aggressive than that.
It’s become en vogue for mediocre teams to put some value on “finishing strong”, but realistically, the 16 teams with playoff odds of less than 10% should be focused on 2014 and beyond. It’s one thing to not trade young players under team control at good prices, or players you’re planning on making a qualifying offer to in hopes of retaining at a discounted price, but if the Royals think they’re actually going to make a run at the postseason this year, they’re misreading their position. The Nationals have gone from pre-season favorite to disappointing should-be-seller. The Rockies, Mariners, Angels, and Padres might have their eyes on contending next season, but each has pieces that they could move to improve their odds of doing so, and should be looking to take advantage of a seller’s market.
Right now, by most reports, there are still only a few teams willing to move players for prospects. There’s an opportunity here for teams that aren’t going anywhere in 2013 to take advantage of the supply shortage and make good deals that help them more than hanging on to their veterans will. It looks like the next three days might be a race to see which of the non-contenders decides to prioritize meaningful future wins over the ability to sell a fan base on a third place finish.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Somebody should send that chart to Ruben Amaro Jr.
So you’re saying there’s a chance?!
I don’t get it: people don’t think the Phillies are selling?
No, they don’t, for a few reasons:
1) Ruben and the rest of the gang keep seeming to suggest they won’t
2) They haven’t traded Lee or Papelbon or Utley or anyone else yet
3) Seriously, why didn’t they trade anyone when they had a chance
4) Damn this is hard to watch
I was just think the opposite about Dayton Moore. He would no doubt be energized by learning he has an 8% chance. And he’s (theoretically) smart enough to know better.
Ned Yost, on the other, hand… my Lord, I cannot even imagine the mental gymnastics he and Rusty Kuntz will engage in when hearing about this. It would make, “So you’re sayin’ I have I chance!” sound like LaPlace’s first lectures on Bayesian statistics.
I don’t know who “Rusty Kuntz” is, but he sounds a little inappropriate for this website.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1007212&position=OF
He’s the guy who stands next to Konerko and Getz.
http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2013/04/04/when-kansas-citys-chris-getz-reaches-first-this-season-base-coach-rusty-kuntz-will-be-there-to-greet-him/
I would agree that the Yankees chances of winning the NL East, while non-zero, are incredibly small.
I think the difference between ‘incredibly small’ and zero, in this case, is rounding error 🙂
Lets say there is a 0.000001% chance that Bud Selig approves moving the Yankees to the NL East in the middle of this season.
Then they still have to win the division. I suppose that is highly dependent on which team moves to the AL East.
If it is the Phillies, Mets or Marlins, then I think ~5% might be it. So, total odds 0.00000005%.
If the Nationals move, maybe 10%? 0.0000001%. But, if the Braves get moved– then maybe 0.0000009%.
🙂
Still a better shot than the Marlins
Trust me, the Yanks are in it to win it!
You don’t know how much I appreciate you going Anaheim for the Angels.
I’d have preferred California, like the raisins.
One thing I think gets ignored in these discussions is how much revenue a 82-82 team might make down the stretch and in next year’s season tickets (promising that they are ‘close’) versus say, a 78-86 team. I have no idea how much this adds up to but I have to think it is non-trivial. And that this acts as a serious brake pedal on trades. We keep hearing that teams are asking too much in terms of prospects, but given the failure rate of prospects versus the cash that could allow you to sign an extra free agent I’m not so sure that most writer’s perception of trade value and most GM’s are in any way congruent. Hence the lack of trades.
I’m betting on no teams going 82-82.
And while you have to keep an eye on revenues, that means you also have to build tomorrow’s team. If I were .500, I’d want my team to trade away vets that will be gone next year anyway. At this point in the season, I doubt that are many people buying new tickets. And I doubt the people buying the tickets are making their decision to buy on whether they think the team will be 81-81 or 77-85.
Team goes 81-81, and because the league was remarkably poor except for the division winners, it gets to a play one-game playoff to get into 2nd wild card slot. They win that game, but lose the wild card game, which one can argue isn’t really the “playoffs”.
Thus, 82-82.
I think you’re selling short the extra revenue a team going 78-86 will generate from their 2 extra games they play a year.
I could not agree more. Revenue for 164 game season has been entirely ignored.
Yeah, yeah, was a pretty bad error.
Willing to bet a years salary that no teams go 82-82 any time soon.
I wouldn’t take that bet, obviously, but it can happen.
If a team ties for both the Division and Second Wild Card, they could play 164 games.
Also, if the Yankees move to the NL East mid-season, all bets are off on the change in the schedule.
Hey, at least you got 14 responses over an inconsequential mistake rather than any addressing the more interesting comment you were making.
Can it be inconsequential if it got 14 responses?
Are you new here?
No.
Which is that, studies have shown that the 3-4 win difference between winning 77/78 games vs winning 81 will have little difference in revenue from ticket sales next year. Making the playoffs matters in terms of revenue. Being .500 doesn’t make much of a difference.
This nonsense that the Royals are spewing about “finishing strong” seems to me to be a phony means of boosting wins this year at the expense of the future, probably in an attempt to save the GM’s job. It’s almost certainly detrimental to the long-term best interests of the organization.
I would agree with you except that I guarantee you that there are talk radio hosts and many of their listeners who are discussing this 8% chance today as a MAJOR positive. Seriously, there is at least one host who has gone to break today asking, “Hey, is the glass 8% full or 92% empty? Which side are you on?” I really wish I was joking.
And you can’t rule out at least a majority of the FO people legitimately agreeing with them.
I don’t get it. Why resort to a lazy narrative when we can reasonably calculate this? We know there is more value attached to the, say, 11th pick over the 13th pick in the draft (although we’re still in the range where you’re likely to reach a binary outcome–your pick “hits” or “misses). We also reasonably suspect that there is value to winning games too for future revenue, especially for historically bad teams. Find the PV. Problem solved.
Second, when it comes to decision making, I don’t prefer gut instincts. I like data. If we replace “Finishing strong” with “saying with better confidence what this team’s true talent is”, is the Royals strategy really poor for the long-term? You may ascribe an ulterior motive to Dayton Moore here (and you might be correct), but you wholly neglect the possibility that 1. ownership isn’t so daft as to see through this and 2. ownership doesn’t tacitly support such an endeavor for the reasons mentioned (2014 revenue, getting a better grasp of the talent of a young team).
I wonder how much of “finishing strong” is a whiny owner who doesn’t like charts like this and then says, “so get me Alfonso Soriano.”
I think the Blue Jays could make a killing if they decided to sell. While I don’t necessarily think AA wants a fire-sale with an eye on contending in 2014 if they traded Jose Bautista they could probably get at least two interesting major league ready youngsters plus another decent prospect.
You basically want to reset the clock back to the end of last season, and un-blow-up the minor league system?
I doubt you’d be able to get Syndergaard and D’Arnuad back, even if you traded Bautista for them. And if you did, it would be like trading Bautista for Dickey.
Last year’s dealings have been so destructive, almost unprecedented in MLB history, that I think you have no choice but to close you eyes and hope for the best.
“And if you did, it would be like trading Bautista for Dickey.”
Even if the moves in the last offseason look bad in retrospect, it shouldn’t change what they should be doing going forward. Not saying selling off player X or Y is the right move or the wrong move, just viewing them through the prism of last year’s moves not working is the wrong way to approach it.
Sunk costs and whatnot.
Not really. Last year’s fiasco means that it makes no sense to continue on a rebuild mode. TO has already traded off a probable top-10 (Syndergaard), top-20 (D’Arnaud), top-80 (Nicolino), top-80 (Hechavarria), and top-70 (Marisnick).
So you can’t go back.
If you trade your best position player for minor leaguers, and have a poor rotation, then you are still very unlikely to win in 2014.
At this point, I think you have to make a decision if you are playing to win, or if you are in a rebuild mode.
AA and Jack Z were essentially given the analogue to the Obama pre-emptive Nobel World Savior prize by Fangraphs. Now that the Middle East is about to literally blow up, it sounds like in one city at least that relationship will hold…
Anybody want some Josh Johnson? Anybody? Bueller?
… Bueller?
There’s actually a deleted scene in that movie where Ferris and Cameron are talking in the men’s bathroom of the Art Institute and Ferris says, “between you and me, I really want Josh Johnson.” Then he winks and walks out and Cameron stares into the mirror for a solid 150 seconds.
You had to go and spoil the upcoming 30th anniversary director’s cut for me…
So, just how minimal is the Yankees chances of winning the NL east exactly?
Lol but seriously good article I hope Sandy Alderson can read this and realize that Marlon Byrd could get a real prospect in return at the moment.
Sandy is expecting to get Oscar Taveras for Byrd. Doh!
He got Syndergaard and D’Arnaud for Dickey. In retrospect, Tavares for Byrd seems more balanced.
This chart’s nice and all, but a team that’s at or near .500 shouldn’t be selling. That sends a horrible message to their fans.
For example… The Mariners aren’t going to get anything for guys like Raul Ibanez and Mike Morse, but keeping them for a push to .500 will go a long way to help heal the rift they’ve created with their fans over the last decade (whether Ibanez and Morse can actually make a positive difference is a separate discussion). If they end up selling guys like Oliver Perez and Kendrys Morales, they have to justify to their fans why they’re tanking a season that doesn’t look as lost as it did a couple weeks ago.
Fans in Washington, Colorado and Kansas City should feel the same way.
“This chart’s nice and all, but a team that’s at or near .500 shouldn’t be selling. That sends a horrible message to their fans.”
Yuck. This is how you end up in the Phillies’ situation. “Let’s hang onto these expensive guys that we might turn into decent young assets because we’re afraid of sending the wrong message. Are we going to contend with this core? No.”
You’re working off the faulty assumption that the Mariners can turn what they have into even decent young assets. The Mariners should hold on to Kendrys Morales unless a team wants to overpay, because he’ll be worth a QO next year and can help them win games this year. Oliver Perez was their most tradable asset, but Atlanta acquiring Scott Downs for nothing makes me think the Mariners won’t get much for him either.
Kendrys Morales worth a qualifying offer? 14M? No way…
Also… bringing up the Phillies is laughable. They’ve won their world series, made it to another and play play in front of nearly 40k every night. The Mariners barely draw 20k and have nothing to show for the last 13 years, if their “success” before that even counts for anything. They’re hemorrhaging fans and finally have a great base of young talent (Thank you, Jack Zduriencik) which could help them sell even more with a winning, or nearly-winning season behind them. A couple of C+ at best prospects won’t even make a dent in their system.
The phillies don’t play in front of 40k every night. Maybe last year when they were still delusional. That may be the paid amount from the poor bastards who were suckered into season tickets, but that’s dwindling.
The RAJ has taken a strong roster in their prime with a ring, sold out stadiums, and 175M in payroll and turned it into garbage. Instead of being the Cardinals (smartly holding on to some but releasing others, churning a strong farm), they became the Cubs from 09-11. No farm, no real youth, and a bunch of old guys with albatross contracts.
I said nearly 40k. You can look up the actual figure for yourself. They’re in a bad spot with their organization. I never said otherwise. It’s still laughable to compare them to the Mariners in any way.
Seattle has two fewer losses than the Twins, meaning that, 13 teams are in the race. Seattle probably has to play ~ .750 to finish 1st. So the chances of them finishing 1st are tiny.
You’d have to play about .675 to make the WC.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but as a RS fan, we were 2 games > .500 at the trading deadline, and only 7.5 out of 1st. We were in much better shape than Seattle is this year. But you can’t continue to squander assets in the hope that you can be this year’s miracle team.
The Mariners (or more specifically Jack Z.) needing to know what to sell, not whether to sell. At the deadline, you don’t sell promising starters with years of team control left to contenders for pieces of chopped liver, the way Zduriencik did with the Fister trade. You can sell wasting assets like Ibanez, Perez or even Morales (who is an FA next year), but you don’t sell Iwakuma (which I’ve seen mooted on Mariner boards) for less than a prospect that a casual fan wouldn’t need to look up to know who you got.
Actually, this is exactly what a lot of fans are thinking. We don’t want our GM to deal anymore because over his last few years if he’d just let a chimp run the team we really would be in contention.
you’re on the team?
shut up shut up shut up
Exactly where did I say anything about the Mariners contending for the WC or the division? Getting to .500 would be a major accomplishment for a franchise that is hemorrhaging fans every year.
I’m a Mariners fan. .500 doesn’t mean squat. This year is lost. They should be playing for the next year (and the year after that). That means sell. If they play their cards right, next season will be better. If management stays pat intending to finish .500, for a small number of fans that will be happy with a no-playoff season, I’ll be mad. The hell with supposed “horrid message” to the fans. I think the fans know what’s going on; not just this year, but the future.
I’m as much of a Mariners fan as you are. Judging from the attendance, I don’t think you or anybody else can claim what the fans know, or whether there are enough left for it to matter.
Bottom line… they’re not going to get anything for the players you would want them to sell, except salary relief to add to their already cheap image, which has helped drive away thousands of fans. This is proven by their drastic drop in attendance and the fewer still which actually bother to go to most of the games. It really sucks to go to games and see that many empty seats. It feels like watching baseball in a morgue except for when the Moose runs around or the Hydros are racing.
Look… it’s not that I don’t have an open mind about the team making trades. When or if Jack Zduriencik makes a trade, I’ll analyze it based on what’s given up and the return the same if the Mariners are in first place or fourth. But if the trades only net the Mariners a few C prospects, of which the Mariners have plenty at the top, middle and bottom of their system, they’ll have given up too much.
“The Mariners aren’t going to get anything for … Mike Morse”
This was said on Fangraphs last offseason, just sub in “Nationals” for “Mariners.”
But then the Nationals got some nifty pitching prospects for Mike Morse.
Weird stuff happens in the trade market.
Unfortunately for the Mariners, Jack Z can only be the general manager of one team, so I doubt they really can get anything for Morse.
Weird stuff doesn’t happen with players who haven’t been healthy or productive two years running. The Mariners should trade him because they have nowhere to play him anyway, but they shouldn’t expect anything in return.
I’d look at the 2003 Royals as an example of what finishing at a “meanlingless” .500 buys a team. It seems to be about 4,000 fans a game*, but for only one year. It sounds like a lot, but it’s so short lived that it’s hard to see that having much impact on the team or the brand, even in just the medium term. You need sustained attendance growth for it to matter much. That’s what will give the ownership the revenue to invest in contract extensions or a higher tier of free agents.
*Not at all scientific. With similar records in 2004 and 2005, the Royals lost ~4,000/game from one year to the next, and that is only if you assume ALL of those extra fans came out because of the one mediocre winning season.
I think I replied to the wrong comment, but it’s in the right vicinity so close enough for me!
And no serious person can use Coolstandings. BA has a 6% chance of finishing first, and the NYY only 1.3%, even though NY is only 2 back of BA in the loss column? That implies that BA’s chances are 4.61x better than NY, even though NY has 3 decent players returning to their lineup, after adding another decent RHH.
Using the short end of percentage to calculate probabilities? Oof…
Let’s reverse this, and hopefully the perspective will be clearer:
There is a 94% chance that Baltimore will not win the division.
There is a 98.7% chance that the Yankees will not win the division.
What’s more amazing to me is that there is a small, but not non-existent, subsection of FanGraph readers who are also WWE fans.
Do you need any help moving?
No, but I could use a ride to the airport.
WWE is a pretty huge and wildly popular company and has a contingent of nerdy fans who like it for the comic booky stuff. How is it that much of a surprise? What’s surprising is the number of people who make unfounded, sweeping generalizations.
Chill man — I’m one of those nerdy fans.
Why do you even bother responding to a post like this. I think Joe was really distracted when he posted that, or maybe he was drinking, or maybe both. Either way, I suspect that will be the last you hear of him on this particular topic.
Serious fans know that Coolstandings pay attention to many factors, like which opponents are left to play, not just “NY is only 2 back of BA in the loss column.” Read up about Coolstandings and how their odds are calculated; you might learn something.
If your a GM and your decision to go for it or sell comes down to how the fans will react then you should not be a GM. Fans want to see winners. if selling makes your team better in the future sell.
Jays should be selling most of their spare parts who wont be around in 2014, guys like Johnson, Oliver, Davis, probably Jansen,
Why do the Dodgers have only 3.6% chance at the WC, while the Reds have a 74.6% chance? Looking at the projected standings here on FanGraphs, the Dodgers are projected to finish at 88-74, while the Reds are projected to finish 87-75. So even if the Diamondbacks finish ahead of the Dodgers with that record, they still have a shot at finishing ahead of the Reds for the second wild card, no?
The Dodgers have a 63% chance at winning the division.
What do you think the odds are for the Dodgers losing their division lead and also ending up with enough wins to secure a WC berth? I think 3.6% sounds about right.
Your “even if” is the key phrase. For the Dodgers to be the Wild Card, the Diamondbacks have to finish ahead of them and both have to finish ahead of the Reds. FanGraphs has the Diamondbacks projected to finish 83-79, so a D-Backs-Dodgers-Reds order of finish is pretty unlikely.
While I wouldn’t be against the Nats selling, or any other team in a similar situation, you have to have players to sell. Of their expiring contracts, I could Haren, Kurt Suzuki and Chad Tracy. Who wants them, and what would the Nats get in return even if someone did? With Detwiler with a worse injury than expected and Jordan about to get shut down for his innings-limit, they kind of need Haren just because he’s a warm body, etc.
Soriano would be the Nats best trade piece, but given his contract and lack of dominance, I don’t see much of a return. Might as well hold onto him and hope for a miracle. Attendance has held up pretty well so far. Just need to sweep the Braves three times and the Nats will be in 1st!
(No, I don’t think there’s a realistic shot of that happening. I’m making a tongue-in-cheek comment.)
You are clearly underestimating the TWTW of my club. Chris Getz alone jumps those odds by 6000%, making our team a shoe-in for the playoffs. Prepare the Plaza for the Parade.
Aubrey? She’s busy doing weird things for the sake of being offbeat.
Hey, if Esky gets hot I’ll finally have my two hole hitter for more than just bunting in the first inning (he’ll still do that of course). Esky hotness has to increase our odds by at least 50%, I’d say.
The lack of trades drive articles like this. The additional WC spot and changes to the CBA have changed how tesams think. It sounds good to trade your vets for players that will help you in 2014 if you’re a team not going to the playoffs. However, if you’re not being oftened anything that will help in 2014. Perhaps, it’s best to play what you have this year.
Rockies at the precipice. Talking about selling DLR. If that happens, Gonzalez probably isn’t too far behind and I will look into taking out a contract on O’Dowd.
In my opinion, the only teams that should be serious buyers are the teams that are in a close race for their division title, because that’s the only guaranteed playoff spot they have access to. That would whittle the buyers down to Boston, Tampa, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and maybe Cincinnati. Wild card race teams should hold in my opinion or make minor moves, because they’re only gunning for a shot at the division round. Looking at it that way, it makes the deadline a huge buyer’s market. There are way more teams with no chance at any sniff of the playoffs (17 teams at less than 10% of reaching the division round) than there are real buyers.
So let’s say you’re Detroit – clearly running away with the AL Central now. It doesn’t help to improve your record to have home field advantage/a better first round matchup? And this knowing that if you run the AL playoff gauntlet you have home field advantage in the WS?
On the other hand, teams with legit wild card shots who have players coming back from injury, or who have just underperformed, etc. (arguably, Texas). And with a really good farm system to go get legit players? I completely disagree because your odds when you are bunched into that group are essentially the same as your competitors. Anything you can do to improve by a couple games under those circumstances is a no brainer to me.
They should probably be looking at acquiring a starting shortstop for the remainder of the year.
I would argue that the benefit of winning the division is far and away more valuable than home-field advantage in the playoffs. Home field advantage in the playoffs is 54%, which is almost nil. I wouldn’t give up much at all to get a two game benefit (which is a damn good player over two months) if all I’m going to get is home field. If you were arguing basketball where the advantage is much greater, then you’d have a better case.
My point is the only improvement worth paying for is the one that gets you the division title. I’d hate to give up young talent only to lose the wild card game.
The playoff odds underscore a much deeper problem. Here are the best teams in MLB, in order as of today, with their odds of making the division series, according to both CoolStandings and BP. (The ranking iteratively adjusts strength of schedule based 50% on WL% and 50% on underlying stats, then takes the adjusted actual record to date and projects the rest of the season with the same 50/50 weighting.)
Bos: 71, 73
TBR: 66, 69
Det: 85, 93
Oak: 89, 87
StL: 82, 77
Pit: 59, 61
Bal: 23, 17
Cin: 49, 56
Cle: 31, 25
Atl: 97, 97
Tex: 20, 29
NYY: 7, 6
[4 game gap in projected wins here]
LAD: 65, 85
KCR: 6, 1
Tor: 0, 0
Ari: 31, 16
A system where the 10th best team in baseball has the best chance of making the playoffs, while the two best teams have the 6th and 7th best chances — well, that’s obviously a terrible system. The Dodgers, a projected schedule-adjusted 84-win team, have a 75% chance of making the division series, while the two 100-win teams, the Sox and Rays, are at 72% and 68%. Arizona, a 79-win team, has a better chance at the division series than Baltimore, a 93-win team.
For the top 10 teams, the correlation between projected schedule-adjusted wins and current playoff odds is a meager 0.35.
As it stands now, two of the eight best teams in baseball will be eliminated before the playoffs really begin, and there’s a 40-45% chance that one of the two best teams will be eliminated. What other sport does that?
Braves are sixth in actual winning percentage, sixth in position player fWAR, 10th in pitcher fWAR, and fourth in run differential. If this obscure “ranking” you’re relying on puts them as the tenth-best team in baseball, the problem is probably with your “ranking,” not with baseball’s playoff system.
While I agree that 10th seems pretty low for the Braves, they do rank 9th in wRC+ and only 7th in xFIP. One could make the argument that their run differential results from playing in the NL East. I think any reasonable person would agree that they’ve had an easy schedule this year, which is probably why their ranking is so low in this chart. The rankings are based on adjusted records for strength of schedule.
Regardless, I think the point still stands quite nicely. The dodgers and diamondbacks, both pretty mediocre teams, have a greater likelihood of making the playoffs than the orioles, indians, and the rangers. This is the nature of the beast with divisional playoffs (see: the NFL), weaker divisions allow weaker teams compete for a league championship.
That being said, whether such nature reflects a true problem is debatable. If unexpected phenomena are part and parcel of watching sports, one could argue that giving weaker teams a chance increases potential viewership. From a business perspective, divisional playoffs are more profitable than determining playoffs by overall W-L record.
At the same time, the unbalanced schedule means that even at this point, who you’ve played and hot streaks (cards avg with RISP and the Inverse for ATL) are still altering the measurements.
“What other sport does that?”
Most any. Hello, NFL where 8-8 can win a four-team division or 11-5 can miss out on a wild card (both have occurred).
The NFL: Where a 7-9 team can win a four-team division.
I don’t really get your point. The playoff odds are just odds as of now, because the rest of the season still needs to be played. There is a chance that a team like the Rays or Red Sox could fall apart, due to injuries or otherwise, and lose a lot of games at the end of the year, in which case, they will no longer be the two best teams at the end of the year. As for what other sport does that? Every major North American sport. The NFL has essentially the same system as MLB, and the NBA has the two conferences where inferior teams from one conference usually get in ahead of a better team in the other conference.
When I heard about the second wildcard I thought it was a dumb, gimmicky idea. I really like it now actually. It makes the division race much more important. The wildcard becomes the after thought it should be; a consolation prize as it were. As much as it does suck that an 84 win team has a better chance of reaching the playoffs than the 100 win teams, the races will be better. Before the second wildcard, it would be a forgone conclusion that the Sox and Tampa are both making the playoffs and no one has any chance at the wild card. Now the Sox and Tampa have to fight it out for the division, because one of them could easily be knocked out in the wild card game if they lose the division. Also, other teams are in line to play for that second wild card slot for a chance to beat one of those two for a divison series berth.
The Indians have climbed quite a bit since I last looked at the playoff odds on Fangraphs Standings page. You recommend that they should be buying and that really surprises me! Would like to hear more on what you think they should be buying because I think they are looking like they will be more able to compete next year.