Why is it so hard to win a lot of games in baseball versus other pro sports?

Hitting a baseball is the hardest feat in sports.

A good hitter is .250, which means only 2.5 out of 10 at bats produces a favorable outcome. Thats a really low success rate. Then you gotta get 9 other guys firing on all cylinders as well.

At least four good reasons off the top of my head.

1. Law of large numbers - lots of NFL teams win 75% of games in a 16-game season but how many do it for a combined 10 years? You might find an MLB team that went 14-2 for their last 16 games.

2. Can't go all-out every game. If games were once a week, you could have your ace pitcher every game.

3. More luck involved in a game.

4. More parity between teams because one player can't dominate a game (except a pitcher, but they only pitch every 5 games).

That is interesting. You would think with no salary cap that the richer teams would dominate smaller market teams and rack up high winning percentages.

One reason might be that due to rotating starting pitchers, there's plenty of times where a team's 4th or 5th starter is going up against the top of the opponent's rotation. On even the best teams, the bottom of the rotation will struggle against another team's top starter.

I'm curious what the baseball numbers look like 16 games into the season? Part of it might be that they just play so many games eventually things regress to the mean.

But in baseball they also play more games and can't spend too much effort trying to win every game like they do in football. Like look at the best 10 pitchers in baseball. How does their team do in the 30 games they start? That's a little closer to FB where you have your best QB out there for every snap. In baseball you're only as good as your starting pitcher.

I would guess if baseball played games 1 per week like football you'd see a more similar result to what you see today.

But baseball is also inherently more random than other sports so it's bound to have its ups and downs.

Manchester wrote:

At least four good reasons off the top of my head.

1. Law of large numbers - lots of NFL teams win 75% of games in a 16-game season but how many do it for a combined 10 years? You might find an MLB team that went 14-2 for their last 16 games.

I thought of that but they play a large number of games in the NBA, too. Thirteen teams in NBA history have won 67 or more games in a season out of 82, an 81.7% winning percentage.

jamb innn wrote:

Hitting a baseball is the hardest feat in sports.

A good hitter is .250, which means only 2.5 out of 10 at bats produces a favorable outcome. Thats a really low success rate. Then you gotta get 9 other guys firing on all cylinders as well.

But that goes both ways. Both teams have a similar low success rate of getting a hit.

Consistency is almost impossible in baseball.

On the pitching side, Julio Urias was probably the most dominant starting pitcher in MLB with a 20-3 record. Next best in the Dodger's line up was Buehler with 16-4. After that, quality dropped off significantly with Kershaw struggling this season at 10-8 and Bauer at 8-5. It is almost impossible to have a starting rotation that is solid all the way through. Guys get injured or lose their stuff or have a slump. Minor leaguers get called up and get shelled. Same issue with the bullpen.

Same with hitting. There were only 14 players with batting averages over .300 this year. And you have to balance power with speed and left handed batters. If you just have a bunch of huge guys who can crank the ball, you will never win a game. You need guys who can get on base and left handed batters and so on. A roster that balances all those needs is incredibly difficult to come by.

In sports like Basketball and Football, the top players will be able to produce every game. Consistency is not an issue for players like Brady and Antetokounmpo. It is just a matter of having top talent in every position that makes teams in the NFL or NBA dominate.

So many reasons - 162 games being the biggest. It's a game of limiting failures as opposed to displaying dominance. Odds are stacked against getting on base and scoring runs, which results in a default # of runs that is about the same for every team in each individual game. If the average score per team in each game is approximately 3 runs, it then comes down to who is able to eke that extra run or 2 for the W during 9 innings. That may as well be a coin-flip a good portion of the time. So for example, if you know it's essentially guaranteed you will win 33% of your games and lose another 33% and that these stats will spill over to the remaining 1/3rd of your games, it becomes next to impossible to win 75% of the time. I'm exaggerating of course, but if you flip a coin 162 times, it will never land on one side 75% of the time.

More variance in baseball. The better team doesn't win sometimes. Less variance in football as the better team usually wins.

Ty Cobbler wrote:

Manchester wrote:

At least four good reasons off the top of my head.

1. Law of large numbers - lots of NFL teams win 75% of games in a 16-game season but how many do it for a combined 10 years? You might find an MLB team that went 14-2 for their last 16 games.

I thought of that but they play a large number of games in the NBA, too. Thirteen teams in NBA history have won 67 or more games in a season out of 82, an 81.7% winning percentage.

Apples and oranges I suppose, but i f you changed the dimensions of a basketball court and more than doubled the size of a team from 5 to 9 and then added a few more games (maybe make it a 100 game NBA season), I seriously doubt any one team would sniff an 80% win rate.

Manchester wrote:

At least four good reasons off the top of my head.

1. Law of large numbers - lots of NFL teams win 75% of games in a 16-game season but how many do it for a combined 10 years? You might find an MLB team that went 14-2 for their last 16 games.

2. Can't go all-out every game. If games were once a week, you could have your ace pitcher every game.

3. More luck involved in a game.

4. More parity between teams because one player can't dominate a game (except a pitcher, but they only pitch every 5 games).

#4. One or two great players can not help you win in baseball the way it can in the other sports.

Ca$hclay wrote: Apples and oranges I suppose, but i f you changed the dimensions of a basketball court and more than doubled the size of a team from 5 to 9 and then added a few more games (maybe make it a 100 game NBA season), I seriously doubt any one team would sniff an 80% win rate.

"Almost doubled" is what I meant :-)

Manchester wrote:

At least four good reasons off the top of my head.

1. Law of large numbers - lots of NFL teams win 75% of games in a 16-game season but how many do it for a combined 10 years? You might find an MLB team that went 14-2 for their last 16 games.

2. Can't go all-out every game. If games were once a week, you could have your ace pitcher every game.

3. More luck involved in a game.

4. More parity between teams because one player can't dominate a game (except a pitcher, but they only pitch every 5 games).

#5: Baseball is the only sport where the defense can control your offense; only in baseball does your offensive attempt begin with the defense holding the ball. It exposes your offensive success to much more volatility from the very start.

Yeah the fact that you can only use your best pitcher on average for about 70-80% of one game out of every 5 games is pertinent here. Your best hitter can only contribute one at bat per 9 at bats. It's a total team effort. In other sports, the best players have a more profound impact each and every game.

Which is why its really hard for any team to have a boatload of wins. Most teams hover at or around .500. No one really runs away with the season.

Because baseball is not a sport and the players are not athletes. They lack true aggression or the will to dominate. So if 60% is good enough to be #1, that's all they go for.

I’d say the main reason is pitching. Even if you have 3 of your 5 starting pitchers the best in the league that’s only 60% winning percentage, if they win every game they start. And they won’t because many games they start will end up as losses because relief pitchers take over and blow it or the hitters score zero runs.

Obviously hitting is difficult but both teams deal with that.

The other sports the same players play each game so if you’re good, you’ll win almost all of your games.

Mostly because baseball players are:

1. Asleep

2. Looking at porn

3. Hungover

4. All of the above

Baseball is more luck than most of the other sports. in baseball 2 good teams can play with team A winning first game 11-0 and losing the second 0- 11.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Because baseball is not a sport and the players are not athletes. They lack true aggression or the will to dominate. So if 60% is good enough to be #1, that's all they go for.

Looks like we found our Dwight Schrute.