Sorry, I was rushed when I typed that and it probably came off rude. Not my intention, and I think this can be a great discussion.pioneer98 wrote:OK.JL21 wrote:Season-long parity and individual season strength aren't really the same as random variation or confidence in outcomes.
I still say MLB has more random variation and less confidence in who will win on any given day than football.
EDIT: but we are talking about playoffs. Season-long parity and individual season strength are what determines which teams make the playoffs and play in things like the Super Bowl.
What I'm thinking, though… compare and contrast just how much of baseball can be predicted within a really reasonable measure of accuracy. That's because there's so much more data to work with. What can't be predicted, however, are the ticky tacky luck events, like a flurry of odd, well-timed base hits that make a team go from 85 wins and 2nd place to 93 wins and a playoff spot. Look at the Orioles last year, for instance, and their bizarre ability to win tight games in historically successful ways. Without that, they would've been on the outside looking in come playoff time.
Football, on the other hand, has 1/10th of the data to work with, and that's not even applicable to a lot of positions. I don't know for sure but I doubt there's any sort of predictive model for guys on the OL, or whether or not there's any kind of accuracy to the projections for several of the skill positions. Defense is even more of a crapshoot because so many of the stats that are tracked are kind of meaningless.
Now, teams… maybe teams are more predictive in the NFL. Is that a function of a wider gap in talent evaluation? And while there's been a lot of static Super Bowl appearances, there's at least one team every year that goes from garbage to the playoffs. Look at the Chiefs and Panthers this year, or the Colts and Redskins last year. In 2011, it was the Niners. And the reverse is true, too. Houston completely collapsed, for instance.




