Is winning MLB Postseason mostly luck?
Debate Rounds (3)
First off, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.
Second off, I would like to thank all of you taking the time out of your day to read this debate.
Luck: The accidental way things happen without being planned. (Merriam Webster)
Contention 1: Luck is an essential factor in sports.
Society defines luck as what happens not according to plan. The MLB postseason, as with all other forms of postseason, have a seeding system. In the NCAA March Madness seeding system, the 8 seed and the 9 seed play in the first round. According to my opponent, the 8 seed should win most of the time, when in fact, 8 seeds only win 51 percent of the time- not making it skill.
Also, announcers use the terms 'he better have luck on his side here' and 'that was a lucky shot' quite often, and if neg is true, those announcers would be unable to say those terms.
And finally, society often calls a win or a loss, specifically a loss, lucky or unlucky. This is a direct correlation that luck is an essential factor in sports.
In response to my opponent's case, I have barely anything to say, because my opponent had barely anything to say.
My opponent states that to get to the MLB Postseason does not involve luck, but this statement is not relevant to the topic. We are talking about just the postseason here, not the season itself.
My opponent also stated that 'it is impossible to win the entire thing with luck,' which I agree with. But this topic is about mostly luck, not all luck, thus making my opponent's idea invalid.
I will now wait for my opponent's answer to my case and rebuttals.
I would like to start things off by saying that your argument made a lot of sense. It had its reasonings behind it and you support your argument.
However, in the professional level, where players are already at the top, I do not believe that a lot of luck is involved. I think my opponent has gotten something wrong but, I didn't say no luck was involved at all for postseason, but I also don't think luck is really an important factor. The reason being is because Major League Baseball is already made up of the best baseball players in the world, and postseason is where the bests of the bests play in. In such level and stage, luck cannot decide the entire postseason.
The best example I have to back up my statement is the World Series 2001, where Arizona Diamondbacks and New York Yankees played. In this game, nobody thought that the Diamondbacks could possibly pull this off. The reason was because the Diamondbacks were weaker in both batting and pitching. However, they had two weapons named Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. By sending these two out, the Diamondbacks took the first two games. However, having no one else in the rotation to send out, they lost 3rd and 4th game. However, they stragized and came back to win the series 4 to 3. You cannot possibly call the Diamondbacks beating the Yankees here lucky because by strategizing 4 games that they must take, they have succeeded in this and have won the title from the absolute best at the time, The Yankees.
First off, I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response.
Second, I would like to back my own case and then attack my opponents.
My opponent states that because the MLB Postseason is the best of the best, it is not luck. A Harvard study (http://ftw.usatoday.com...) says otherwise. This study states that the MLB playoffs are mostly random, leaving it down to luck. It also says that "Every team that reaches the LDS has a good chance as all the others to win the World Series." This is Harvard, one of the most premier colleges in the world, stating that luck is very important in the MLB postseason.
My opponent's example that they use is the 2001 World Series between the Diamondbacks and the Yankees. My opponent says that the Diamondbacks won because they strategized correctly, beating the other team. But, doesn't this help my case? The person thought to be the loser, defying all odds, beating the powerhouse of the Yankees? Sure, there was skill involved, but there is a prime example of luck in Game 7 of that series. It is luck that Luis Gonzalez hit the baseball into the exact place from the exact pitch from the exact pitcher by using the exact bat speed and exact point of contact. There are simply too many 'exacts' that must have gone on in that play to determine it as skill. Everything worked out perfectly, and that is what society calls luck.
I will now wait for my opponent's response to my arguement.
First thing I would like to point out is, my opponent's attempt of using my example against me did not make any sense. The reason being is because my opponent said that 2001 World Series example helps his case out, but it seems as if he missed my point in my example. At the time, the absolute best, New York Yankees versus the absolute unexpected visitor, Arizona Diamondbacks. In 4 games that the Diamondbacks won, there was not a single moment where luck could have gotten involved. The Diamondbacks' closer at the time Kim Byung-Hyun, made appearances in two of the World Series games, and he has blown two saves in his two appearances. Which means that the Diamondbacks could have won the World Series without going to 7 games series. In this case, the odds are against the Diamondbacks, however, they still managed to come back to win the series. You can't call this luck when they were down in the series and have still managed to come back against the team that everyone expected to be the winners.
Next, I would like to point something out about his example. I do understand that 5 and 7 games are a very small sample size. However, just like the "Harvard researchers" said in my opponent's example, it states that every game leading up to postseason is not involving any luck because of it's sample size. One thing I would like to say about this is that during postseason, things get way more intense than during the regular season. Which brings up the point for me saying, when things get more intense, players are to focus more for postseason games. When players do focus more, the chance of luck decreases extremely, especially when both teams are concentrated against each other. It is because if both teams are focused against each other, it makes things way harder for a team to win.
Finally, I would like to say something about when my opponent mentioned Luis Gonzalez hitting a '"lucky" hit. My opponent has said that because Luis Gonzalez hit the baseball 'into the exact place from the exact pitch from the exact pitcher by using the exact bat speed and exact point of contact'. That is a valid point, but I would like to mention, if you call that luck, then what would every walk off hits and home runs be during regular season. During a regular season, when a hitter hits a home run, wouldn't that be the same case of hitting the baseball into the exact place from the exact pitch from the exact pitcher by using the exact bat speed and exact point of contact? So by saying that Gonzalez's hit was lucky, my opponent is calling every walk off hits and home runs luck. I would just like to say, that is not the reason the word 'clutch' exists.
Thank you for your response, and I apologize for being a bit late.
For my opponent's entire first paragraph, my opponent says, in short, that 'the odds are against the Diamondbacks, however, they still managed to come back to win the series. You can't call this luck when they were down in the series and have still managed to caome back against the team that everyone expected to be the winners.' This is luck in and out of itself. Luck is the team, against all odds, comes in and wins the series against the more favorited team. My opponent, and I will say this once again, is merely pushing a point that only benefits my side. It would have been skill had the Yankees won, but no, it was luck, because the Diamondbacks beat the team that was statistically better than them. Isn't that luck itself?
Before I begin with defending my out case, I would like to wonder why my opponent used quotation marks around the term 'Harvard researchers' in his statement. I do wonder what the point of that was, and the only thing that I can think of is he was doubting the study, which is what my evidence is all about? That makes no sense to me.
I do understand that the players are more focused during postseason games. And yes, this means that they are concentrating more. My opponent states that 'when players focus more, the chance of luck decreases extremely.' I would disagree with this statement. I believe that chances of luck are increased during focus, because skill plays a prime factor in luck. So it is not only the batters that are upping their game, it is also the pitchers. This balances everything out, and if anything, the pitchers are more focused during their time on the mound.
My opponent said that I indirectly called every walk off and home runs luck. And I do believe that, because (and I quote myself here,) walk off hit/home run is hit into 'the exact place from the exact pitch from the exact pitcher by using the exact bat speed and exact point of contact.' Sure, skill can increase your luck of doing this, but this debate is not on whether it is ALL luck or ALL skill, but on which is more of a factor in the MLB postseason. So I fail to see the relevance that my opponent's arguement has to this debate.
I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. This was a fun debate, and I do hope that we can do this again in the future.
Also, I would like to thank those who have read through and followed this debate. Thank you for your time and effort.
Finally, I urge those voters to vote for the argument that I have presented today.
Thank you all.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.