Originally Posted by MWM
Yes, I get the whole playoff randomness thing. But the Twins are 3-16 in the playoffs in the last 18 years. That's not being on the bad side of the odds of winning a playoff series.
They also have played only teams that are as good or better than them. And how many of those starts were made by Johan Santana, who was the best pitcher in the game at the time?
Sure, 3-16 is horrible. But that doesn't necessarily make your specific explanation any more accurate.
What are the odds of a playoff caliber team going 3-16 against equal or better competition? Good teams have bad stretches, bad stretches of 20 games even, especially against very good competition. A poor W-L is one thing. Naming a specific cause supported only by anecdote is another thing entirely, regardless of how much sense the story makes. I'm sure I could look at their team and come up with another logical explanation.
I'm not sure that you (and most people for that matter) appreciate how randomness looks. Even given a completely random sample, a few observations are going to appear to result from something other than luck.
Let's agree that having 2 great starters makes you more likely to advance in the playoffs. The question becomes: how much of an advantage is it? Is it worth chasing a 2 ace model even if it decreases your chances of making the playoffs in the first place? What if it only means decreasing your chances of making the playoffs in the future? These aren't easy answers. Given the choice, give me the playoff team with 2 aces. But I'm going to be MUCH more focused on building an organization that is capable of sustaining 85+ wins before I'm going to chase an ace at any cost.