Quote:
Originally Posted by endgame
Actually, what strikes me most odd about your OP is the overall winning percentages across the board. All the teams in that division did extremely well, and whether that should surprise me can be argued, but it does.
|
I think the OP should show the complete standings and indicate the schedule used.
What we see suggests a variant schedule (not division loaded) or an irregular distribution of talent across the league(s). I'd say that its mathematically improbable to achieve 90+ wins with 4 teams in a 5 team division with a standard schedule when the fifth team is competitive with 81 wins. The rest of the league must suck badly for teams to find the wins needed.
In 2013 teams played 76 division games 66 games against the rest of the league and 20 inter-league games.
In order to win 90 games a team would have to go 40-36 in the division (remember there are 4 good teams) 38-28 vs the other ten teams in the league and 12-8 in inter-league play. That's very good by any standard. Take a few wins off any one set of results and the remaining two would have to be even better!
Any single team getting one or two of these results is reasonable. Any one or two teams getting all three results would be interesting. Having 4 teams in one division achieve all three results is close to lottery odds unless there are a lot of bad teams for them to play.
To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, "Show me the standings".
