The U.S. performance in the WBC

[Derwood]

Clearly the US didn't have enough professional hitters and gamers.

[1908]

Well the US players are barely in ST form but I am guessing if you had them play 7 game series against Japan/Korea/Cuba/Mexico they would win all those series still. Maybe have it at a different time of year, and change the format?

This was my biggest concern with the tournament's setup as well. Baseball isn't well-suited to single game matchups; there's a reason why baseball plays 2-10 times as many games per season than any other sport. If the intent of the tournament is to compare each country's level of play then the format should be changed to better gauge that. Larger pools for pool play, 3-5 game series for the semis/finals, etc. Otherwise the tournament is more or less just an exhibition. A highly entertaining exhibition that I've enjoyed very much, mind you, but it really doesn't tell you a whole lot about what country has the best players.

Basketball isn't much -- if at all -- more suited to single game match ups, but I don't view the NCAA tournament as an exhibition. It's just a different animal compared to the NBA playoffs, and I enjoy both formats as a basketball fan.

The best baseball teams win about 60% of the time and the worst teams still win almost 40% of the time. In basketball, the best teams win more than 70% of their games and the worst teams don't crack 30%.

 

It takes more games to reach a 90-95% confidence level of having the best baseball teams win than it does in basketball.

Could the difference in the number of games played be having an effect on those percentages? That is, would the best teams lose a higher percentage of games in basketball if they played twice as many games, and would the worse teams win a higher percentage under similar circumstances?

[treebird]

I'm still merely amazed that Saint Jeter could not will the USA to victory with all his clutchy goodness.

 

a-rod cancelled him out