.

IN BILL JAMES' LATEST article, he chuckles about the fact that most people think that he can answer 90% of baseball questions.  Or 98%.  Or 99.97%.  People think that almost all questions -- such as "Is it an advantage to be the team waiting for the other team in the postseason?" -- have definite answers.

One of the reasons people think that, is because (almost) everybody on TV treats (almost) every question that way.  As if it has a definite answer.  When do you ever ask Tim McCarver that, something like, "are home runs more important in October?," and McCarver just says "I'm sorry.  I have no idea."

People complain to James when he says "I'm sorry.  I don't know," and they literally point to ESPN.  "The guys on ESPN can answer everything."

James not only tells his readers when he doesn't know something -- he also tells his employers that.  Usually when they ask him a baseball question, he replies, "I don't know.  I'll study the issue."

If Dr. D were to expire tomorrow, he would want to leave the world with that one thing.  The insight that total knowledge is 1,000 light bulbs, and nobody has 900 of the light bulbs on.

.

I'll Bet My Money on the Bob-tail Nag, Somebody Bet on the Bay

Not that Bay!

So James starts with a warning, he doesn't know who will win a postseason series.  

(He is also the SLOWEST man I know to predict a pennant race, and the SLOWEST man to say something like, "Well, the Portland Whitecaps can't make the postseason, so they shouldn't be buying free agents this winter."  In Seattle it is a cottage industry to rule the Mariners out of contention and to demand they be "sellers" and to "rebuild correctly."  Five years and counting, gentlemen.)

But then James says he does know two things about the postseason, or did know them, in 1983 when he last studied it:

• It is a big advantage to have more HR power in the postseason.  It's the biggest basic advantage you could have.
• If a team is a heavy favorite, it puts the underdog to the sword MORE often than expected.

As of 2009, there were 18 "heavy favorites" in postseason series -- teams with 70% chances of winning a series.  Those 18 heavy favorites won their series --- > 15 times, or 83% of the time.

...............

The 3 "heavy favorites" to win, who did lose ....

• 2001 Seattle Mariners, who won 116
• 1906 Chicago Cubs, who won 116
• 1954 Cleveland Indians, who won 111 (Bob Feller, Early Wynn, Bob Lemon... Mike Garcia was 19-6, 2.64)

I think I know why the 2001 Mariners lost:  they were a team very strong in the bottom half of their roster.  The playoffs emphasize the first 10 players, not the last 15.  

................

So 15-of-18 teams won their postseasons if James pegged their chance to win at 70%.  Also, 23-of-33 teams won if he pegged them at 65%.

But if teams were 51-to-65% favorites, it really was a crapshoot, with favorites winning less often than expected.

................

As to the bigger picture Dr. D has always believed this about sports:  you give the teams 2 weeks to load up for the Super Bowl, and if one of them's a lot better, its chances of winning approach --- > 100%.  It's like a boxing match.  Give two men 12 weeks to prepare for one big day, and you're going to find out who's the best.

This is sort of comforting, when it's so fashionable for Baseball Prospectus to call the playoffs a crapshoot.  Just pile up the WAR, sit back, and snicker at teams so naive as to play rent-an-ace with David Cone types.

It's very unfashionable, with the avant-garde saber talking heads, to even attempt to build a team that is good in the postseason.  In reality, if you could build a wide gap between yourself and the other teams, you would get a big return on your investment -- maybe an 80, 90% chance of winning each series, rather than the 50-60% that people think you have.

You need to be 15 wins ahead of your rival to be a 70% favorite in a long series, or 12 wins better to be a 65% favorite.  If you want to be a heavy favorite in a short series, you need a +20 wins edge.

No "heavy favorites" existed in the 2013 postseason.  Maybe Detroit would have been one, if they'd had a different manager.  

.