| ▲ | lotsofpulp 4 days ago | |
Why would a game of baseball be any more high variance than an NFL game? On the face of it, NFL’s playoff of a single game deciding forward progress seems more high variance, rather than a best of x series. Football also seems more high variance just due to the explosive, physical nature of the game. I wonder what the stats say about lower seeds winning the tournament for MLB vs NFL playoffs. | ||
| ▲ | JohnKemeny 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/6/5/15740632/luck-skill-spor... Why it’s so much harder to predict winners in hockey than basketball | ||
| ▲ | suzzer99 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
The way I look at it is the Patriots in '85 had maybe a 1 in 10 chance to beat the Bears in the Super Bowl. And I think that's being charitable. Meanwhile the best regular season team of my lifetime, the '01 Seattle Mariners, still only win maybe 75% to 80% of the time vs. the historically terrible 2024 White Sox. Now put the '85 Bears against a historically inept team instead of one of the other best teams in the league that year. I'm not sure the '76 Buccaneers win 1 game out of 100. It's just not possible to physically dominate a game in baseball the way it is in football. | ||