I’m not sure what this means, other than it means nothing, but here’s a table showing how the A.L. playoff teams performed against each other in 2007:
|TEAM||vs. LAA||vs. BOS||vs. CLE||vs. NYY||TOTAL|
If any conclusions can be drawn, perhaps it’s these:
- A best-of-five playoff series is not an accurate measurement of seasonal performance. (In other words, don’t claim the Angels are awful just because of one post-season series loss when they were handicapped by injury.)
- The regular-season head-to-head record is not an accurate measurement for post-season head-to-head (otherwise explain Cleveland losing six straight during the regular season to the Yankees, then beating them 3-of-4 in the ALDS).
- The unbalanced divisional schedule is patently unfair. The Red Sox played 35 games against the other playoff teams, the Yankees 33, the Angels 29 and the Indians just 23. I wish MLB would go back to the days when each team played the other an equal number of games, but that won’t happen. (One reason being it would result in creating three leagues of ten teams, and the leagues wouldn’t play each other until the post-season, which would drive down revenue, and professional baseball is all about making a buck.)
It is interesting to note that the Red Sox did okay against the other three despite having the most number of games, although eighteen of those games were against division rival New York who they didn’t face in the post-season. Maybe that means they have more experience in pressure games. Or not.