Did you know that Wild Card teams have won 14 of their last 22 Division Series? Are you surprised? I am.

But -- and of course here's where it gets tricky -- why? Allen St. John runs through the history of the thing, and for the sake of brevity I'll single out just one of his (for lack of a better word) explanations:

An even larger wrinkle in the rules centers on home-field advantage. During the first three years of wild-card play, from 1995 to 1997, the Division Series began with two games at the wild-card team's park, followed by three consecutive games hosted by the team with the better record.

In 1998, the format was revamped, with the division winner hosting the first two games at home, as well as a potential tie- breaking fifth game, while the wild-card team gets games three and four.

--snip--

Under the revised system, the team with the better record is guaranteed to host at least as many games as its rival.

Regardless of Major League Baseball's motivation, the new format marked a turning point that gave wild cards a decisive upper hand against their higher-ranked rivals. Before the change, wild-card teams won only two of six Division Series. Since then, they've gone 14-8.

The secret weapon for successful wild-card teams has been the ability to "break serve” in the opening road games, and then "hold serve” back at home. For example, if Boston can win just one game in Anaheim, with aces Jon Lester and Josh Beckett on the mound, they capture home-field advantage from the Angels and could close out the series at Fenway Park.

And often as not, that's just what baseball's overachieving underdogs have done. Division-Series-winning wild-card teams have won a mind-boggling 88 percent of their home games.

Well, it's one thing to say what "baseball's overachieving underdogs" have done. What I want to know is, what will they do? Are they likely to keep winning 88 percent of their home games? Probably not. Will they continue to "hold serve" as often they "break serve"? Again, probably not. Why would they?

I just don't believe that wild cards have any sort of "decisive upper hand." They've obviously had a decisive advantage in terms of results, but that doesn't mean 1) they've had a decisive advantage before the results, or 2) they'll have any sort of advantage going forward. I think the more Division Series we see, the fewer upsets we'll see.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a particular reason for what seems like an inordinate number of upsets. But rather that look just at the results in 22 best-of-five series, I think we need to look at the underlying qualities of the teams and figure out if there's anything special about those overachieving underdogs. Because at the moment, I'm less than convinced.