I just can't win in the playoffs

[Mntwins]

Three more trips to the post season and one of them I actually advanced to the league championship!! But I lost. hehe
16 divisional titles with one trip to the series which of course I lost.

I'm doomed!

[dybbuk]

Without readin the last six pages, has anybody thought of leadership? I don't know if it affects anything or not, but, I was thinkning about it a week ago or so. Does having a few(who knows howmany if any at all makes a diff) "leaders" on the team really make a difference? I mean you hear it all the team irl. Leadership, leadership,leadership.

[highandoutside]

Interesting tidbit from the real world about the play-off fate of dominant regular season teams...quote at the very end of the article.


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...t&lid=tab2pos1

It’s official: ................Over the last 12 seasons, 18 teams have won 100 or more games. Only one, the 1998 Yankees, went on to win the World Series.

[ovccsteve]

In 6.5 (and 2007 seems to be holding form), my 100-110 win teams tended to lose a LOT in the playoffs. It seemed like, though, if I could crank the team up to a 130-win juggernauts, they'd have no trouble in the playoffs. I think I read in BaseballProspectus that teams tend to shoot for 90 wins because that gets them into the playoffs, where it's a crapshoot. But a 130-win team is so much better than the rest of the league, well, it tends to take care of itself. Now if I could just build a 130-win team in 2007.

[1998 Yankees]

Ah, one of my favorite threads emerges again. I wonder why it keeps doing that?

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

Only one, the 1998 Yankees, went on to win the World Series.

You don't say!

[1998 Yankees]

Bumping this baby for any further commentary. I think it needs to be explained and/or resolved.

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Cork55

I have also experienced this as well. 14 playoff appearances (12 with the best record) and only 2 championships. What bothers me the most is that my key starters suddenly stop being aces and get pounded. My teams offense also dips as the opposing 2 star pitchers suddenly become Cy Young.

I wonder if the game resets something...

-Cork55

This is exactly what many players of SI's game Football Manager complain about.

I've often wondered if SI influenced the coding of OOTP to the extent that teams (your team, specifically) gets re-ranked periodically, to make the game harder.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Antonin

This is exactly what many players of SI's game Football Manager complain about.

I've often wondered if SI influenced the coding of OOTP to the extent that teams (your team, specifically) gets re-ranked periodically, to make the game harder.

There's something like that afoot, methinks. Somebody "in the know" should confirm it and either adjust it or tell us to go pound salt. Nicely, of course, followed by a smiley face.

[darkcloud4579]

If you think trying to win in the playoffs is hard, try getting promoted to the majors from three levels back. Now that's hard.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

If you think trying to win in the playoffs is hard, try getting promoted to the majors from three levels back. Now that's hard.

It should be hard to build a winner. Once that is accomplished, a winner should win it all more than once in a while, and only occasionally should there be a collapse. Does that happen? Of course, but it seems to be pre-determined unless it's "your turn" to win the championship.

However, that's just my opinion and my impression. I know some people view this differently, and will agree with the notion that any team which makes the playoffs has an equal chance to win due to changing momentum and abbreviated schedules.

A simple explanation from the designers of whether the game is programmed this way and why they feel it should be so, or that's all just our imagination as some have said, would end this thread properly . . .

[darkcloud4579]

By this logic, the Rockies would be at home. San Diego would be in the playoffs with the Mets and the Cubs would've been beaten the Diamondbacks.

And of course, the Indians would not be 2-0 up on the Yankees either.

The best team on paper just doesn't mean much.

But the lack of response from our developer friends signals to me that we're either "grasping at straws" or "I'd rather not go there. It won't end well.." and I tend to agree. Nothing they can say will satisfy anybody to the degree they'd like.

The game works as well as real life, so I think it does its job as far as the playoffs are concerned.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

But the lack of response from our developer friends signals to me that we're either "grasping at straws" or "I'd rather not go there. It won't end well.." and I tend to agree. Nothing they can say will satisfy anybody to the degree they'd like.

Yeah, I get that impression as well. I thought I would come out and say it, extending the invitation as it were, and if nothing happens, then I will drop the subject. Perhaps there might be a mention of it in the changelist for the last patch, but if that were true, I'm sure somebody would have said something along those lines. As it is, it's just a bunch of us squawking at each other. Oh, how we must amuse the gods at times.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

It should be hard to build a winner. Once that is accomplished, a winner should win it all more than once in a while, and only occasionally should there be a collapse. Does that happen? Of course, but it seems to be pre-determined unless it's "your turn" to win the championship.

So I've been reading this thread with interest and it has started to bother me. I frankly don't understand the problem. The thing is, it's hard to win the World Series. Why should a winner win it all more than once in a while? That's ridiculous, unless you're the Yankees. I'm not sure how closely the game models real life in this case, because I haven't run a number of different test leagues to get numbers. But from the sound of the people complaining about lack of championships, it sounds like you would only win a championship for every 5 to 10 playoff appearances.
I decided to take a look at the last 32 years of real life MLB. I only looked at teams that existed in 1975:

*Since 1975, only 6 teams have won more than 1 championship. Of those 6, only Cincinnati and the Yankees have more than 2.

*There have been 177 playoff appearances by teams and only 29 championships (The Marlins and D-Backs championships were not counted since they weren't around since '75).

*There are 8 teams who don't have a single championship - totaling 34 playoff appearances without a championship.

*Atlanta has had 15 playoff appearances and only 1 championship

*Oakland has had 11 playoff appearances and only 1 championship

*Boston has had 10 playoff appearances and only 1 championship

*Houston has had 9 playoff appearances and only 1 championship

These are only highlights. If anyone wants me to post the whole list of appearances vs. championships, I will.

The point is... I'm guessing the game does just fine with the number of championships a team wins versus its playoff appearances.

So you may say, "Okay, what about all of these dominant teams that just collapse in the playoffs? There's something wrong with the game there."

Well, again since 1975, there have been 33 100-win teams. Of those 33, only 7 won the World Series. If you take away the Yankees and Reds (who are anomalies in total championships and 100-win seasons vs. championships), you have 24 100-win seasons... and only 2 championships!

That's just how baseball is. It is in the game as it is in real life.

[1998 Yankees]

Thanks for the perspective, Neags. If no official word comes, I will re-read your post and others like it and try to believe: "There's no game like OOTPB. There's no game like OOTPB. There's no game like OOTPB."

[Metsvir2]

Season 2 of the playoffs didn't end as well for my team. They lost to the Reds in the NLDS 3-1 with my best home bullet aka NL Cy Young winner and my best road bullet losing as well.

Well so what if i don't repeat. I won the one i had a great chance in because i was supposed to meet the Reds in the NLCS my first season only for the Nats to upset them in 5.

Now i'm looking to get their ace who's a free agent. I did that to the Reds last year with the pitcher who won the only playoff game for me in Game 2. That 2007 campaign, he won 19 games.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Thanks for the perspective, Neags. If no official word comes, I will re-read your post and others like it and try to believe: "There's no game like OOTPB. There's no game like OOTPB. There's no game like OOTPB."

I suppose I needn't add to the analysis that even the ever-championed Yankees have been to the playoffs for seven straight years now without a championship?

I think the game does just fine...

[CobaltJays]

Before my league files got corrupted, I was doing quite well in the postseason. I won something like 8 of the 12 championships I was involved in.

I should note that I always used a 9-game championship series because there's a greater chance that the best team will win. With 7 games, you're a bit more succeptible to luck. For anyone who is having a hard time winning in the playoffs, you may want to try moving up to a 9-game series.

[Zweiblumen]

Those of you with dominant teams that keep getting bounced, check your team vs team standings: I would suspect that most of your losses came against the very same teams you are meeting in these playoffs. You might be a .750 team against the league, but you're probably closer to a .550 team against the next best teams. In a short series it's not so surprising to lose to a team that's nearly at your level.

[Russ]