posted at 9/3/2012 1:20 AM EDT
In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
In response to expitch's comment:
You denied that the numbers, save for W-L, say it all, then used numbers, and only numbers, then and now, to make your point. Make up your mind.
The Indians are not a good team. They contrive to lose too many games. Like the Sox.
You say the Orioles are "not a good team." Someone, no doubt you, could and would say that if he had access only to numbers, save W-L. Frankly, I think that is absurd on its face. It's the ultimate stat fallacy.
You say "not a good team." I say a good team that has had some luck -- but far from enough to account for the record.
Actually, in one of my first posts, I mentioned several things that can affect the outcome of a game that are not going to be reflected in the stats - some of the many reasons that the outcomes of one run games are more or less due to luck or randomness. I posted stats subsequently to support my claim.
I have no doubt that a good manager can rally the players and get them to perform better. I also have no doubt that characteristics like heart, confidence, desire, comraderie, team chemisty, etc. can translate into better performances, individually and as a team.
I just don't believe that these things would only work in one run games.
If, for instance, a pitcher can dig deep and make the perfect pitch to strike out a batter to preserve the lead in a one run game, why can't he do the same in a 0-0 game to preserve the tie instead of giving a bases clearing double and putting his team down 0-3?
If the Orioles are such a good team, why do they perform so badly in games decided by 3 or more runs?
How is it that a bad team like the Indians has such a good record in one run games?
How is it that a good team like the Rays have such a poor record in one run games?
What you are calling "luck" at a moment in games could in fact be exactly what you say but with a different interpretation. Enough pitchers make the right pitch enough times, and the team wins game. Enough players make the right play enough times, and the team wins games. "But," you say, "it was just good fortune that they made those plays at those times. They would not have made them yesterday, and they won't make them tomorrow. It was lucky that things came together so often at the right time." Unusual, maybe. Flies in the face of your numbers. You're still doing baseball as if it were a parlor game. At the end of the season, given your methodology, and with no W-L record, where would you guess the O's to have finished? Told where ( if they don't collapse ) you'd have to rummage through your "data" again, and say, "Well, they must have been very lucky." You could say that without having seen a single game.
That's, in effect, what you're still doing.
I'd rather give the players and the manager credit for doing what they had to do much more
( much more ) often than not. And, yes, with a little bit of luck. I've seen this happen on baseball fields. It can and does happen.
That's a good team. It may not continue to do it this year. It may never do it again. But to withhold the label "good team" from the current version and standing of the Orioles is just plain silly. Even perverse.