Baseball fans, tell me Why do even regular season champions

>>77368323
>Why do even regular season champions lose 60-65 games?

Because there are 162 games. Also, the massive disparity you see in European soccer between teams like Real Madrid and teams like Getafe doesn't exist in baseball. All of the world's baseball talent is concentrated in MLB, just one league, with 30 teams. Those 30 teams are the best in the world by far, nobody else comes close.

Imagine if the entire European Union had one soccer league, with 30 teams. So the best team is Madrid and the worst team is Tottenham. You'd see a lot less dominance in such a scenario.

>>77368323

I think of it like this. 10 NFL seasons = 1 season

Ah I am too lazy to type out the rest of the explanation but basically even the pats wouldn't go 13-3 10 times in a row (the same year)

File: 1492757345691.jpg (66KB, 640x960px)

66KB, 640x960px

The feel is almost the same as other sports but they play almost every day, so it doesn't last as long. American football you have to carry a loss all week. Baseball it's like 20 hours.

Every single answer in this thread is wrong. The whole defense of a team goes through the pitcher, and since those are individuals who are pretty unique, games are pretty much distinct from one another because teams aren't consistent.

It comes down in large part to sample size. The NFL season is broken up into a much smaller number of games with a week between each, meaning that while there is wear and tear resulting from strenuous football related activity, there is also less of an overall grind related to other factors such as travel time and overall endurance.

Another issue relating to sample size is that in a larger sample, there is more room for wildly varying results. Even an ace can experience more opportunities to be off their game and not make it out of the fifth inning. The same goes for great hitters, who can for whatever reason go into slumps. The opposite can also be true. Maybe a less heralded or marginal player has a good game or goes on a hot streak.

>>77376078

This is kind of right. Teams do win 70-80% of starts made by the more dominant pitchers (But even so would still lose 40+ times a year). Though I'm not sure why he said I was wrong when I wasn't answering that question, but another. Jerk!

>>77368323

youre first question is so fucking stupid

god youre an idiot, kys

theres 162 games you fucking dumb ass low IQ piece of shit, never have kids you fucking prick

>>77376402
yikes

>>77368323
A few reasons:

1) Individual players don't get a lot of chances to make an impact on the game. You only get 4-5 plate appearances per game, and sometimes 0 chances to make a meaningful offensive play. Thus, elite players command less overall value and add less wins to a team than a basketball player does. Imagine if basketball only got the ball in their hands a few times per game, or WRs only got a few targets.

2) Somewhat related to the first one, baseball is just hard/limited. The difference between elite players and mediocre players is extremely minuscule relative to other sports. An elite hitter (.330 avg) only gets a hit approximately 3% of the time more often than an all-star player (.300 avg), who gets a hit approximately 3% of the time more often than a mediocre player (.270 average). The best defensive players only save about 15-20 runs over the course of a season (4-5 runs are the average amount scored per game). Mediocre pitchers (4.00-4.20 ERA) give up less than 1 run per game more than great pitchers (3.20-3.40 ERA)

3) Without going into too many details the whole economic situation of the MLB makes it more difficult to establish superteams/dynasties like we see in the other sports. Again this is obviously related to the fact that individual players control less wins.

Most of the things people are saying itt are not true.

>>77378142
thank you, smart burger :3

>>77376402
The best teams still only win 60% of the time fuckface. It's a valid question if you don't know much about the sport.