|
this is simply about volatility and basics of probability. anything that would reduce volatility should reduce the chances of a crap team winning the division.
Probability:
more teams is likely better... (ceterus paribus, obviously)
let's say it's "10%" chance a team is wretched. 10%^4 vs .10%^5 is a more likely situation. 4 teams is more likely to have a crap team at the top than 5 (.01% vs .001%, if it were truly a 10% chance in this example)
no matter what % you toss in there, this will be true.
Volatility:
# of games vs each other... larger the better. if they do play others, it should be the same 'others' and that should do nothing but help further increase the sample for a more common result.. greater # of games in balance the better. (laymans, not a balanced schedule per se, but that's probably best too, but not needed)
with extreme volatility, odd results are more likely to occur creating greater opportunity for something like a sub-.500 team winning the division.
e.g. think of some team that started off hot then finishes under 500.... bit different but similar in concept. the other 'better' teams have to have terrible luck... fewer games means more likely terrible luck has such a large influence.
|