• Leitch: Yanks Rotation Will Be Their October Downfall

    Posted by on September 6th, 2010 · Comments (90)

    Via Will Leitch:

    But there is trouble brewing, and it’s best described by a quote that [Brian] Cashman might recognize from his old rival across the country in Oakland, Billy Beane. In Moneyball, Beane confesses, “My shit doesn’t work in the playoffs.” What Beane meant was that for all his work at roster construction, once the strange dynamics of October take over—short series where a hot pitcher or a random bounce can prove decisive—winning is a crapshoot. Anything can happen. It’s a lesson Yankees fans should keep in mind, because one can make a strong argument that this team’s postseason prospects are shakier than anyone is willing to admit.

    This season, A. J. Burnett will make more money than Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada, and Robinson Cano. His $16.5 million salary makes him the twentieth-highest-paid player in the game and the sixth-highest-paid pitcher. And he has been terrible. His 5.15 ERA is easily the worst of his career, and he’s compiled a 10-12 record, which, on a team that’s more than 30 games over .500, is difficult to achieve even if you’re trying. Girardi has kept him in the rotation for the same reason Girardi makes most decisions—he has a solid enough lineup, and a big enough cushion in the standings, that he can keep sending Burnett out there and hope he figures it out. In October, he will have no such luxury.

    Burnett is just the highest-profile symptom of the Yankees’ biggest postseason concern. The rotation is springing leaks everywhere. After CC Sabathia, who has been terrific, the Yankees don’t have a single reliable starter. Andy Pettitte hasn’t pitched since mid-July, and it’s far from certain he’ll look like the old Andy when he returns from his left-groin injury. Phil Hughes was the team’s best pitcher the first three months of the season but has cooled off lately (and is nearing his innings limit). Javier Vazquez has vindicated fans who screamed when the Yankees traded for him in the off-season (funny how Game 7 grand slams given up to the Red Sox don’t fade from public consciousness) and was recently plying his trade in the bull pen. Rookie Ivan Nova has been a pleasant surprise, but he’s still a rookie. Dustin Moseley, Chad Gaudin, and Sergio Mitre are guys you throw in the game in case one of the above pitchers can’t make it out of the second inning.

    And that’s it. That’s all the Yankees have as a rotation. A $213 million payroll, and the Yankees have one reliable postseason starter. So much of October comes down to starting pitching—that and Mariano Rivera have been the constants during every Yankees World Series run—and the Yankees, the vaunted Yankees, have no idea who starts Game 2 of a series. Sure, they’re planning on its being Pettitte, but that’s assuming he’s ready and able. If he’s not, the Yankees are looking at Burnett, Hughes, or Vazquez. Never mind Game 3.

    This ties into what I mentioned a week and a half ago. As I said then: “…the Yankees starting rotation, excluding #52, is a mess. It’s a shame that the Yankees front office has turned a blind eye to this as it has been unfolding. Because, now, it may be too late to do anything about it.”

    There’s no way this rotation carries the Yankees through three rounds of post-season baseball. Maybe, just maybe, it might get them through the LDS – because you only need three wins there. But, come LCS and WS time, it’s going to be a sad time in Yankeeland, should New York make it that far.

    Comments on Leitch: Yanks Rotation Will Be Their October Downfall

    1. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 4:33 pm

      Oh, I frequently have to repeat my explanations to the slow-track students, too. So you have plenty of company.

    2. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 4:41 pm

      “Bounced” with these pitchers outperforming opposing starters of teams with combined aggregate payrolls of approx. $850-900 million, compared to Oakland’s aggregate payroll of approx. $130-40 million.

      And now you’re just making shiite up.

      The combined payroll of the three teams that beat the A’s was well under about $250 million combined. The 2002 Twins that beat them in the ALDS had a payroll about $500,000 higher.

    3. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 4:42 pm

      Oh, and bringing up Beane doesn’t help your case. In fact, it annihilates it.

    4. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 4:43 pm

      Do you still think Beane was referring to “predictability” in describing winning a postseason series with a $40 mil. payroll as a “crapshoot?”

      It would be quite hysterical to watch try to explain what else he could have meant by that.

    5. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 4:49 pm

      You used to be fond of formal definitions, so here’s one for you:

      crap•shoot (ˈkræpˌʃut)

      n. Informal.
      an unpredictable venture; gamble.

      ========================================

      That’s what a crapshoot is: it’s unpredictable.

      That’s why “predictability” is relevant. It is precisely the unpredictability of the post-season that makes it a crapshoot, regardless of any stats you dig up to analyze the results of one series, or any group of series, AFTER the series are over.

      The results are irrelevant to the predictability, unless you can demonstrate the ability to predict these series, and we can compare your predictions to the results.

      THAT is the one and ONLY way you can prove the post-season isn’t a crapshoot.

    6. PHMDen
      August 4th, 2013 | 5:11 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Bullspit. Nothing was mistated. Nothing was mislabeled.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      “Good pitching stops good hitting” is a long-standing baseball bromide. But it’s really “good pitching stops good hitting, except when it doesn’t.”

      Equivocation ((“to call by the same name”) an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). “Good pitching” in the first instance refers to pitching in a general sense, “good pitching” in the second instance refers to one particular staff in one particular outing or series.

      It was never said that a team was “better” because it won a playoff series, or a staff was “better” because it performed better than an opponent in a playoff series, but you keep saying it was. All of this is hard enough to follow to begin with, and you’re not making it any easier.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Because your definition of the “better” staff is based on the RESULT of the series.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      No one said the team that wins a post-season series is or is not the “better” team

      Or that a staff is “better” based on the RESULT of a series.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      It was stated that teams with a .060 advantage in regular season winning percentage vs. that of their opponents had a large advantage (>70%) in winning that series. Theoretically, if a team were to enter the post-season with an advantage of .060 in WPCT over every other team in the playoffs, and even if the .725 number were a valid, confirmed statement of that advantage, the odds of winning 3 such series, and the title, was less than 40%. Meaning such a team would be less likely to win it all than not to win it all. Meaning a team without a .060 advantage over all other playoff teams would be less likely than even that 38% probability.
      Empirically, there have been only two such teams in 18 years. One won it all, one didn’t. So even that overwhelming regular season advantage doesn’t guarantee a title.
      That’s how.

      So one argument is: “in the last 18 yrs., there have been only 2 teams to have a .060 ‘advantage’ in reg. season WPCT over every other playoff team and only 1 won the World Series, and only 3 teams won the Series with the best reg. season WPCT?”

      This ignores the results of 108 playoff series.

      A second argument is that no team has a better than 50% chance of winning the World Series at the start of the playoffs?

      If true, that doesn’t mean no team has a better than 50% chance of winning a playoff series.

      The issue isn’t predictability or probability, the issue is if a team won only 5/11 playoff series in 8 years, was it because the team wasn’t better, or because the system for determining a league champion and a world champion wasn’t better?
      Evan3457 wrote:

      And they lost all three series, 3 games to 2. If that doesn’t have crapshoot written all over it, nothing does.

      Is this a second or third argument: 3 out of 126 series have “‘crapshoot’ written all over them?”
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Every short series is a crapshoot. In the regular season, there are more and larger mismatches (i.e., series in which there is a much larger disparity in team quality) than in the post-season. This supports the arguement that the regular season is much less a crapshoot than the post-season, and therefore, conversely, the post-season is much more of a crapshoot than the regular season.

      A series between a first place team and last place team in June is outside the scope. The nature of the playoffs is not the nature of reg. season play, at least not from April to September and most of the time.

      The issue isn’t predictability or probability, the issue is if a team won only 5/11 playoff series in 8 years, was it because the team wasn’t better, or because the system for determining a league champion and a world champion wasn’t better? Because teams with the best WPCT won the World Series only 3x in 18 years doesn’t mean the system for determining a league champion and world champion is a crapshoot.

    7. Ricketson
      August 4th, 2013 | 5:41 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      “‘My (stuff) doesn’t work in the playoffs. My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is (bleeping) luck.’

      By the way, where does the word “crapshoot” appear in the above quote?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      “What happens after that is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after that is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after that is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after that is (bleeping) luck”.”
      Repeated four times… maybe it will sink in..

      By the way, where does the word “crapshoot” appear in the above quote?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      [H]ere’s [a definition] for you:
      crap•shoot (ˈkræpˌʃut)
      n. Informal.
      an unpredictable venture; gamble.

      Where does the word “crapshoot” appear in the previous quotes? And where does the word “predictability” appear in the previous quotes? “Luck?” I’ve explained what Beane meant by “luck,” and why HE required it.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, and bringing up Beane doesn’t help your case. In fact, it annihilates it.

      What’s that? 0-4 on logical fallacies, and 0-? on valid arguments? I’ve lost track.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And now you’re just making shiite up.

      The combined payroll of the three teams that beat the A’s was well under about $250 million combined. The 2002 Twins that beat them in the ALDS had a payroll about $500,000 higher.

      The aggregate payroll of the John Cashman’s son’s N.Y. Yankees ALONE for the period 2001-03 was more than $250 million. ?-? on facts? I’ve lost track.

      PHMDen wrote:

      The issue isn’t predictability or probability, the issue is if a team won only 5/11 playoff series in 8 years, was it because the team wasn’t better, or because the system for determining a league champion and a world champion wasn’t better?

      Choirs sing: “Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah…”

    8. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 6:33 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Equivocation ((“to call by the same name”) an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). “Good pitching” in the first instance refers to pitching in a general sense, “good pitching” in the second instance refers to one particular staff in one particular outing or series.

      The only equivocation is in your mind. Pitching of one team, and hitting of the opponent is two halves of the same coin. Always has been, always will be.

      It was never said that a team was “better” because it won a playoff series, or a staff was “better” because it performed better than an opponent in a playoff series, but you keep saying it was. All of this is hard enough to follow to begin with, and you’re not making it any easier.

      If that wasn’t said, then nothing relevant concerning “crapshoot vs. not crapshoot was said.

      No one said the team that wins a post-season series is or is not the “better” team
      Or that a staff is “better” based on the RESULT of a series.

      OK, then, nothing was said. I agree.

      So one argument is: “in the last 18 yrs., there have been only 2 teams to have a .060 ‘advantage’ in reg. season WPCT over every other playoff team and only 1 won the World Series, and only 3 teams won the Series with the best reg. season WPCT?”
      This ignores the results of 108 playoff series.

      The RESULTS of 108 playoffs series, without reference to whatever strength can be estimated going into those series, prove nothing on the subject of “crapshoot vs. not crapshoot”.

      This simple point is what is not being understood. I don’t understand why.

      A second argument is that no team has a better than 50% chance of winning the World Series at the start of the playoffs?
      If true, that doesn’t mean no team has a better than 50% chance of winning a playoff series.

      Absolutely true. Also doesn’t prove “not crapshoot” vs. crapshoot.

      The issue isn’t predictability or probability, the issue is if a team won only 5/11 playoff series in 8 years, was it because the team wasn’t better, or because the system for determining a league champion and a world champion wasn’t better?

      What it means is that a team that might be expected to win about half of its playoff series, won about half of its playoff series. Shocking.

      And they lost all three series, 3 games to 2. If that doesn’t have crapshoot written all over it, nothing does.
      Is this a second or third argument: 3 out of 126 series have “‘crapshoot’ written all over them?”

      No, the specific case of a team with three top starters, the supposed “necessary requirement” for winning in the post-season, proves not guarantee anything at all, not even one series win. That’s the point, and your pseudo-clever quip misses it.

      Because teams with the best WPCT won the World Series only 3x in 18 years doesn’t mean the system for determining a league champion and world champion is a crapshoot.

      Not in and of itself, no, I’d agree. But it is a piece of the puzzles, and all the relevant pieces so far appear to form the same picture: mostly crapshoot, most years.

    9. Ricketson
      August 4th, 2013 | 6:35 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Can’t find a quote in which Beane uses the words “crapshoot” and “predictability” in the same sentence, or “predictability” in any sentence for that matter. Do you have one?

    10. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 6:39 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      By the way, where does the word “crapshoot” appear in the above quote?
      Evan3457 wrote:
      [H]ere’s [a definition] for you:
      crap•shoot (ˈkræpˌʃut)
      n. Informal.
      an unpredictable venture; gamble.
      Where does the word “crapshoot” appear in the previous quotes? And where does the word “predictability” appear in the previous quotes? “Luck?”

      You can’t really be this stupid, so I’ll just assume you’re covering up by denying the obvious in lieu of an actual argument.

      I’ve explained what Beane meant by “luck,” and why HE required it.

      And your explanation is wrong, as the passage in context makes plain.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      And now you’re just making shiite up.
      The combined payroll of the three teams that beat the A’s was well under about $250 million combined. The 2002 Twins that beat them in the ALDS had a payroll about $500,000 higher.

      The aggregate payroll of the John Cashman’s son’s N.Y. Yankees ALONE for the period 2001-03 was more than $250 million. ?-? on facts? I’ve lost track.

      Hysterically feeble, as the Yanks played the A’s only in 2001, not 2002 or 2003. Again, the Twins payroll was a mere $500 K higher. Didn’t matter, the A’s, with three dominant starters, still lost.

      PHMDen wrote:
      The issue isn’t predictability or probability, the issue is if a team won only 5/11 playoff series in 8 years, was it because the team wasn’t better, or because the system for determining a league champion and a world champion wasn’t better?
      Choirs sing: “Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah…”

      This issue IS predictability, or we aren’t debating crapshoot vs. not.

    11. PHMDen
      August 4th, 2013 | 7:25 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      This issue IS predictability, or we aren’t debating crapshoot vs. not.

      It’s not much of a debate when one side doesn’t have an argument.

      Beane never referred to “predictability,” and you’ve steadfastly refused to address the issue of whether or not a team that won only 5/11 playoff series failed to win more because the team wasn’t better, or because the system for determining a league champion and a world champion wasn’t better.

      Your entire stance is predicated on predictability, when the issue is not whether or not it predictable that the team would win any of those 11 series, but whether or not it can be said the system is one that allows for reasonable determination an AL, NL or World champion.
      The person responsible for the quote NEVER alluded to “predictability.” Only you have.

      Your response, more often than not, is to say you’re right, but not offer anything else in the process but criticism of an opposing point of view and often a misrepresentation of that view at the same time. And dictionary definitions.
      Another in a litany of examples: “the specific case of a team with three top starters, the supposed “necessary requirement” for winning in the post-season.” No one said that, and necessary and requirement are redund-ant.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      you’re covering up by denying the obvious in lieu of an actual argument.

      Funny you said that, because that’s been my impression of what you’ve been doing. You’ve retreated behind predictability; because you can’t win the argument on its merits, you’ve changed the argument.

      Why is the system for determining a league champion and a world champion inadequate? Because only 3 teams with the highest reg. season WPCT won the Series? That’s not an argument, or to the extent it is, it fails.
      When someone makes a similar argument about 126 postseason series, you call it “hindsight,” which is both incorrect and incompatible with your own argument!

      Evan3457 wrote:

      But it is a piece of the puzzles, and all the relevant pieces so far appear to form the same picture: mostly crapshoot, most years.

      You don’t have all of the “pieces of the puzzle,” just the “relevant” ones? Hint: predictability is not a piece in the puzzle.

    12. Ricketson
      August 4th, 2013 | 7:41 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Hysterically feeble, as the Yanks played the A’s only in 2001, not 2002 or 2003. Again, the Twins payroll was a mere $500 K higher. Didn’t matter, the A’s, with three dominant starters, still lost.

      You’re right, sorry.
      I knew the 700% seemed high. I was probably laughing too hard at one of the posts. So what are we talking about, approx. $275 mil. to $135 mil.? 200% Who cares? I don’t even take this discussion seriously anymore. You lost it a long time ago.

    13. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 8:20 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      This issue IS predictability, or we aren’t debating crapshoot vs. not.
      It’s not much of a debate when one side doesn’t have an argument.

      I agree; your side doesn’t have an argument, primarily because it doesn’t know the meaning of the word crapshoot.

      Beane never referred to “predictability,”

      When he said “after that, it’s (bleeping) luck”, that’s exactly what he meant. You denial is valueless.

      and you’ve steadfastly refused to address the issue of whether or not a team that won only 5/11 playoff series failed to win more because the team wasn’t better, or because the system for determining a league champion and a world champion wasn’t better.

      Because it isn’t at issue here. The Yanks have won, within reasonable error bars, about as many series as they should have. Maybe one series fewer. There is no failure here. They were what they were, and they performed very close to the way they should’ve given what they were.

      Your entire stance is predicated on predictability, when the issue is not whether or not it predictable that the team would win any of those 11 series

      .
      No, predictability is the practical difference between crapshoot vs. no crapshoot.

      but whether or not it can be said the system is one that allows for reasonable determination an AL, NL or World champion.

      It is a reasonable system for determining a champion. I’ve never argued otherwise. Still a crapshoot, mostly. The NCAA tournament is even more of a crapshoot, the NBA playoffs, less so.

      Your response, more often than not, is to say you’re right,

      Because I am right.

      but not offer anything else in the process but criticism of an opposing point of view and often a misrepresentation of that view at the same time. And dictionary definitions.

      On the contrary, I’ve offered several arguments, in several forms, all with some validity, none refuted.

      Another in a litany of examples: “the specific case of a team with three top starters, the supposed “necessary requirement” for winning in the post-season.”

      I used that example because Lewis cites Beane as believing in that requirement.

      No one said that

      Lewis implies Beane has.

      and necessary and requirement are redund-ant.

      I used necessary there to distinguish it from sufficient.

      You’ve retreated behind predictability; because you can’t win the argument on its merits, you’ve changed the argument.

      We can’t even agree on what the argument is because we don’t agree on what “crapshoot” means. I’ve been trying to point out for the last 10 replies or so is that the defintion of crapshoot you appear to be using is incorrect and irrelevant.

      Why is the system for determining a league champion and a world champion inadequate?

      I’m not making the argument that the MLB playoff system is “inadequate” just because it’s largely a crapshoot. All playoff systems are crapshoots to some extent or other. Some more, some less, depending on the sport, the size of the tournament, etc. This doesn’t mean that they’re “inadequate”.

      Because only 3 teams with the highest reg. season WPCT won the Series? That’s not an argument, or to the extent it is, it fails.
      When someone makes a similar argument about 126 postseason series, you call it “hindsight,” which is both incorrect and incompatible with your own argument!

      Wrong, because the two arguments are not of the same kind. Your argument is looking backwards from results. My argument is looking forward, attempting to use data available from the regular season to try to predict the outcome of the post-season.

      When I say that the post-season is a crapshoot, what I mean is that, looked at before it starts, any team in it can win. Some teams appear to have a better chance than others before it starts, but there are too many upsets in singe round series, and too many surprise title winners for the MLB post-season to be classified as “not a crapshoot”.

      The very defintion of crapshoot includes: an unpredictable venture.
      UNPREDICTABLE. Get it now? If it isn’t predictable, then it’s a crapshoot.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      But it is a piece of the puzzles, and all the relevant pieces so far appear to form the same picture: mostly crapshoot, most years.
      You don’t have all of the “pieces of the puzzle,” just the “relevant” ones? Hint: predictability is not a piece in the puzzle.

      I give up. I can’t explain to those who will not learn.

    14. Evan3457
      August 4th, 2013 | 8:21 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Hysterically feeble, as the Yanks played the A’s only in 2001, not 2002 or 2003. Again, the Twins payroll was a mere $500 K higher. Didn’t matter, the A’s, with three dominant starters, still lost.
      You’re right, sorry.
      I knew the 700% seemed high. I was probably laughing too hard at one of the posts. So what are we talking about, approx. $275 mil. to $135 mil.? 200% Who cares? I don’t even take this discussion seriously anymore. You lost it a long time ago.

      LOL.

      I’ll leave it to those who read to judge who’s the winner of this argument, and who isn’t.

    15. PHMDen
      August 4th, 2013 | 8:53 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      There is no failure here. They were what they were, and they performed very close to the way they should’ve given what they were… It is a reasonable system for determining a champion. I’ve never argued otherwise.

      That’s right. The failure is at the GM level, not on the playing field. And a reasonable system cannot be called a crapshoot; the two assertions cannot be reconciled.

      The system for determination of the AL, NL, and World Series champion worked, and a team that performed very close to the way they should’ve given what they were: division-winning teams not built to win in Oct. in most years, did not advance beyond 11 series over 8 years.

      They weren’t good enough to win, and they didn’t win. The 1996-2001 teams were good enough to win 16/16 series, and won 14/16 series. The primary reason the 2005-12 teams didn’t advance beyond 11 series can be argued to have been inadequate postseason starting rotation depth – and very persuasively.

      An argument the team failed to advance to more than 11 postseason series because the postseason is a crapshoot has no merit. Beane never used the term “predictability” or any related term.

    16. Ricketson
      August 4th, 2013 | 9:06 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Can’t find a quote in which Beane uses the words “crapshoot” and “predictability” in the same sentence, or “predictability” in any sentence for that matter. Do you have one?

      I guess the answer was “no.”
      Evan3457 wrote:

      I give up.

      Now that we’ve settled the fact that the postseason is not a crapshoot, we should move on to arguing about how the Clemens-for-Wells trade was not the best trade in the history of Major League Baseball for the next week, or even a very good one.

    17. Kamieniecki
      August 4th, 2013 | 9:32 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      We can’t even agree on what the argument is because we don’t agree on what “crapshoot” means.

      My final thought on this subject: I don’t think Beane cared whether it was predictable his teams won or not, I think he just cared whether his teams won or not. I don’t know why predictability would be an important issue with Beane; if the comment came from Rose…

    18. Evan3457
      August 5th, 2013 | 1:32 am

      PHMDen wrote:

      That’s right. The failure is at the GM level, not on the playing field.

      Unproven assertion.

      And a reasonable system cannot be called a crapshoot; the two assertions cannot be reconciled.

      Idiotic assertion.

      The system for determination of the AL, NL, and World Series champion worked, and a team that performed very close to the way they should’ve given what they were: division-winning teams not built to win in Oct. in most years.

      Unproven, and, in fact, unprovable assertion.

      They weren’t good enough to win, and they didn’t win. The 1996-2001 teams were good enough to win 16/16 series, and won 14/16 series.

      Self-contradictory assertion.

      The primary reason the 2005-12 teams didn’t advance beyond 11 series can be argued to have been inadequate postseason starting rotation depth

      Can be argued, but contradicts with the argument many of the same blockheads were making just a few months ago that the 2012 Yankees were doomed by their not-ready-for-prime-time offense, and by extension, the same for the 2010 and 2011 teams.

      and very persuasively.

      Not so much.

      An argument the team failed to advance to more than 11 postseason series because the postseason is a crapshoot has no merit. Beane never used the term “predictability” or any related term.

      Continued failure to comprehend “crapshoot”; i.e., an unpredictable venture. Beane’s use of the words “(frigging) luck” instead of unpredictable is a distinction without a real difference.

      Thanks for the same nonsense, over and over and over…

    19. Evan3457
      August 5th, 2013 | 1:35 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Can’t find a quote in which Beane uses the words “crapshoot” and “predictability” in the same sentence, or “predictability” in any sentence for that matter. Do you have one?
      I guess the answer was “no.”

      Don’t have to; “(frigging) luck) means something very similar, if not the same. I don’t have to find the proof you seek, in the form you seek. My point is already proven.

      Now that we’ve settled the fact that the postseason is not a crapshoot, we should move on to arguing about how the Clemens-for-Wells trade was not the best trade in the history of Major League Baseball for the next week, or even a very good one.

      Now that we’ve settled you don’t understand what crapshoot means, i.e. an unpredictable venture, feel free to move on to anything you want to.

    20. Evan3457
      August 5th, 2013 | 1:47 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      We can’t even agree on what the argument is because we don’t agree on what “crapshoot” means.
      My final thought on this subject: I don’t think Beane cared whether it was predictable his teams won or not, I think he just cared whether his teams won or not. I don’t know why predictability would be an important issue with Beane; if the comment came from Rose…

      The exact quote, again, is:
      “My (stuff) doesn’t work in the playoffs. My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is (bleeping) luck.”

      (Moneyball, p. 275)

      One place the “crapshoot” commentary about the playoffs come from is Bruce Bochy’s pre-game press conference before game 2 of last year’s NLDS:

      Q. In talking to the Reds, they have pointed to a different between 2010 and this year when they didn’t make it out of the first round as experience being a big thing for them this year. You guys are experienced team having made a World Series run in 2010. So is the lesson that the difference between this year and then is that the playoffs can be a little bit of a crap shoot?

      BRUCE BOCHY: Yeah, and you know that going in. You work so hard to get to the playoffs and you understand, especially in the first series, best out of 5, it can become a little bit of a crap shoot when you catch a team, how well they throw, balls falling in, base hits, things like that and they have played very well.

      So one of the best managers in the game and one of the best GM’s in the game agree.

      Now, that’s an appeal to authority, and is often a fallacious form of argument, and if I had good reason to disagree with them, I’d make that case. But as the post-season is obviously much more of a crapshoot (and note, those who accuse me of “weasel wording” in that I’ve tried to state that it’s more of a crapshoot than not, rather than just “crapshoot”, Bochy does the same thing in response to the question’s phrase “a bit of a crap shoot”), there’s no real reason to disagree. It’s obviously true, and there is strong evidence and argument to support it, as I’ve laid out throughout this thread and others.

    21. PHMDen
      August 5th, 2013 | 1:19 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:

      The same FACT can be adduced from the hitting side of the coin, but I repeat myself.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It’s probably not exactly equal, but I bet the team that scored more runs won about 79% of the LDS, and about 83% of the LCS.

      It’s the same thing, the same coin. That’s why it’s exactly equal: 79.4%.

      To say:
      a team with starters that pitched better than the other teams’s starters measured by giving up fewer earned runs won 79.4% of playoffs series since 1995,

      is the same thing as:

      a team with hitters that hit better than the other team’s hitters measured by scoring more earned runs won 79.4% of playoffs series since 1995.

      Scoring more earned runs from 2005-7 wasn’t the problem, giving up more earned runs was the problem. The Yankees had one of the best offenses in the AL, the starting pitching was not close to one of the best in the AL. If the starting pitching was better and there was more balance with the two, the team would have won more, it can be argued.

      The offense can’t be better than the best, which it was from 2005-7

      It’s not a tautology: no one offered the team that scored the most runs won 100% of the time.

    22. PHMDen
      August 5th, 2013 | 1:46 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Now, that’s an appeal to authority, and is often a fallacious form of argument

      It’s always a fallacious form of argument.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      But as the post-season is obviously much more of a crapshoot

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Bochy does the same thing in response to the question’s phrase “a bit of a crap shoot”

      Not only is your third or fourth argument fallacious, but you’re calling the playoffs “much more of a crapshoot” by appealing to the authority of one manager who called the playoffs “a bit of a crapshoot.”

      And, once again, Bochy doesn’t refer to predictability as Beane does not.

      Only you have referred to predictability by predictability into a discussion where the issue is whether or not the system for determining a league champion and world champion in baseball is adequate, and if it is, why did the Yankees win only 5/11 playoff series since 2005?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      BRUCE BOCHY: Yeah, and you know that going in….in the first series, best out of 5, it can become a little bit of a crap shoot when you catch a team, how well they throw, balls falling in, base hits, things like that and they have played very well.

      The same can be said of any series, or any 5 games. In any sequence of five games, even across 2 series, the difference between 3 wins and 2 wins can be a “ball falling in” that will look like a “line drive in the box score.”

      “a team with hitters that hit more ‘balls that fell in’ than the other team’s hitters measured by scoring more earned runs off ‘balls that fell in’ won a percentage of playoff series since 1995 that can’t be determined by box scores.”

    23. PHMDen
      August 5th, 2013 | 2:07 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Only you have referred to predictability by predictability into a discussion where the issue is whether or not the system for determining a league champion and world champion in baseball is adequate, and if it is, why did the Yankees win only 5/11 playoff series since 2005?

      “Only you have referred to predictability by introducing predictability into a discussion…”

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Idiotic assertion.

      You can’t say the system for determining a league champion and a world champion in Major League Baseball is adequate or reasonable and also say it’s one just as likely or not unlikely to determine the 1998 Texas Rangers were the AL champion and World Champion, and not the 1998 New York Yankees; the two assertions cannot be reconciled.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Thanks for the same nonsense, over and over and over…

      You’re participation in this discussion has been 99% fact-checking/questioning, logical reasoning evaluation, misstatement of what’s been written requiring restatement over and over and over. dictionary definitions, and introducing things such as predictability into the the discussion that have no relevance and cannot be shown to be associated with those to whose authority who’ve appealed to. Nifty.

    24. Ricketson
      August 5th, 2013 | 3:05 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I give up… I’ll leave it to those who read to judge who’s the winner of this argument, and who isn’t.

      I thought this discussion was over?
      Evan3457 wrote:

      I can’t explain to those who will not learn.

      All seemed to have already learned, or been well-acquainted with, the definition of the words “luck” and “predictability.”
      All seemed to have already learned, or been well-acquainted with, Beane’s quote and the fact that neither he nor Bochy ever referred to the postseason as a “crapshoot” in the context of unpredictability.

      All seemed to understand starting pitchering yielding fewer earned runs than opposing starting pitching is the logical equivalent of starting lineups scoring more earned runs against starting pitching than opposing lineups.

      All seemed to understand citing the results of 126 postseason series is not different from citing 18 World Series except that the former is a more substantial and persuasive sample than the latter.

      And all seemed to understand that a team with the highest payroll in M.L.B. and the best offense in the A.L. for a period of years that had league-average starting pitching and did not win a pennant, did not win a pennant because of a lack of starting pitching depth as one of the most, if not the most, important reason.

      And all seemed to understand it was John Cashman’s son that was responsible for this lack of depth.

    25. Evan3457
      August 5th, 2013 | 3:29 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      @
      a team with hitters that hit better than the other team’s hitters measured by scoring more earned runs won 79.4% of playoffs series since 1995.

      Hitters don’t score earned runs; they score runs. But thanks for re-stating my point.

      Scoring more earned runs from 2005-7 wasn’t the problem, giving up more earned runs was the problem.

      That’ll be news to the 2006 Yankees who were held to 6 runs in the last 3 games, all 3 losses.

      The Yankees had one of the best offenses in the AL, the starting pitching was not close to one of the best in the AL. If the starting pitching was better and there was more balance with the two, the team would have won more, it can be argued.

      I’d agree with that, the more things a teams is good at, the better it’s chance of winning; over the long season, or in a short playoff series.

      The offense can’t be better than the best, which it was from 2005-7
      It’s not a tautology: no one offered the team that scored the most runs won 100% of the time.

      Nor does the team that leads the league in runs allowed (or ERA).

    26. Evan3457
      August 5th, 2013 | 3:38 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Now, that’s an appeal to authority, and is often a fallacious form of argument
      It’s always a fallacious form of argument.

      No, not if the argument is, in itself, correct, without regard to the authority cited. Or if, in fact, the authority cited has definitive proof of the argument.

      but you’re calling the playoffs “much more of a crapshoot” by appealing to the authority of one manager who called the playoffs “a bit of a crapshoot.”

      As opposed to your side constantly saying “not a crapshoot”, as in 100% non-crapshoot.

      And, once again, Bochy doesn’t refer to predictability as Beane does not.
      No, but he does cite random factors. Again: an unpredictable venture”. That’s one definition of crapshoot. I defy you to find a definition of crapshoot that doesn’t include “unpredictable”, or similar terms such as “random”, “chance” or “luck”.

      Only you have referred to predictability by predictability into a discussion where the issue is whether or not the system for determining a league champion and world champion in baseball is adequate
      I’ve never made the argument that because a playoff system has some “chance” or “luck” elements, the playoff system is inadequate. That’s your interpretation of what I’ve said.

      and if it is

      As I’ve said several time, I don’t think it is inadequate.

      why did the Yankees win only 5/11 playoff series since 2005?

      Because they lost one series in 6 of the 7 seasons. Duh.

      BRUCE BOCHY: Yeah, and you know that going in….in the first series, best out of 5, it can become a little bit of a crap shoot when you catch a team, how well they throw, balls falling in, base hits, things like that and they have played very well.
      The same can be said of any series, or any 5 games. In any sequence of five games, even across 2 series, the difference between 3 wins and 2 wins can be a “ball falling in” that will look like a “line drive in the box score.”
      “a team with hitters that hit more ‘balls that fell in’ than the other team’s hitters measured by scoring more earned runs off ‘balls that fell in’ won a percentage of playoff series since 1995 that can’t be determined by box scores.”

      Well, that’s part of my point. There are some random elements in any sports contest. They’re tests of skill, but there’s also good luck and bad luck. That means the better team doesn’t always win, but it also means the team that wins is the winner, regardless of the random elements involved, and it doesn’t mean the playoff system is inadequate just because in some years, the best team doesn’t win.

    27. Evan3457
      August 5th, 2013 | 3:45 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      PHMDen wrote:
      Only you have referred to predictability by predictability into a discussion where the issue is whether or not the system for determining a league champion and world champion in baseball is adequate, and if it is, why did the Yankees win only 5/11 playoff series since 2005?
      “Only you have referred to predictability by introducing predictability into a discussion…”
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Verbal white noise.

      You can’t say the system for determining a league champion and a world champion in Major League Baseball is adequate or reasonable and also say it’s one just as likely or not unlikely to determine the 1998 Texas Rangers were the AL champion and World Champion, and not the 1998 New York Yankees; the two assertions cannot be reconciled.

      1) I never said the 1998 Texas Rangers were as likely to win as the 1998 Yankees. I don’t need to assert anything that silly for my overall point to hold.
      2) The two assertions are reconcilable by anyone adult enough to understand that even a logically adequate well-designed playoff system will not elevate the “best team” to the championship every year, and, in fact, even if this were possible, it would still in not be desirable. Any playoff system that predictable would be a bore. Part of the charm of sports are the upset winners, beating the odds.

      By any reasonable measure, the 1969 Orioles were a far better team than the 1969 Mets. The Mets still starched them in 5 games. Same for the 1960 Pirates, who were tremendously outhit and outscored (yes, even in earned runs) and are still the champion. Doesn’t mean the World Series isn’t an adequate playoff format.

      You’re participation in this discussion has been 99% fact-checking/questioning, logical reasoning evaluation, misstatement of what’s been written requiring restatement over and over and over. dictionary definitions, and introducing things such as predictability into the the discussion that have no relevance and cannot be shown to be associated with those to whose authority who’ve appealed to. Nifty.

      crapshoot: an unpredictable venture.
      Thanks for playing.

    28. Evan3457
      August 5th, 2013 | 3:47 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I give up… I’ll leave it to those who read to judge who’s the winner of this argument, and who isn’t.
      I thought this discussion was over?

      Well, when your side admits defeat, I’ll stop for good. But if you keep coming back with different forms of the same nonsense, I’ll refute it.

      All seemed to have already learned, or been well-acquainted with, the definition of the words “luck” and “predictability.”

      Still don’t seem to understand crapshoot: an unpredictable venture, and without understanding that, everything below this point is irrelevant.

    29. PHMDen
      August 5th, 2013 | 4:26 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Hitters don’t score earned runs

      What do you call a player that hits a baseball with a bat, draws a walk with a bat in his hands, etc. resulting in a run scored that can be charged to a pitcher? Is “hitter” not an appropriate term?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Nor does the team that leads the league in runs allowed (or ERA).

      Leading the league in Runs (allowed), and leading the league in Earned Run Average are two different things.

      The Yankees were league-average from 2005-7 in ERA. The Yankees were first or second in team average, runs scored, etc. in each year from 2005-7.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, not if the argument is, in itself, correct, without regard to the authority cited. Or if, in fact, the authority cited has definitive proof of the argument.

      Appeal to authority is ALWAYS fallacious. You cannot appeal to authority and say was not fallacious to do so because what the authority asserted or claimed was correct. What is the “definitive proof” of either Beane or Bochy that the MLB postseason is a “crapshoot?”

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Again: an unpredictable venture”. That’s one definition of crapshoot.

      Thank you; I’m familiar with the term. And for those terms that are unfamiliar to me, there are dictionaries and resources available online to assist me.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      As I’ve said several time, I don’t think it is inadequate.

      If you’re saying the system for determination of a league champion and world champion in Major League baseball is not inadequate, and the New York Yankees failed to win more than 5/11 series from 2005-12 not because of deficiencies in that system but because the team’s starting pitching was outperformed in most or all series as the most significant reason and for lesser reasons, we would seem to agree.

      If you’re saying that teams that are closer to first in offense overall and first in ERA in a league tend to be luckier in the long term than teams that are closer to first in offense overall and seventh in ERA in a league,
      we agree.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Well, that’s part of my point. There are some random elements in any sports contest.

      We’ve spent hours on this discussion over the course of days to arrive at this “point” (no pun intended)?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      There are some random elements in any sports contest. They’re tests of skill, but there’s also good luck and bad luck. That means the better team doesn’t always win, but it also means the team that wins is the winner, regardless of the random elements involved, and it doesn’t mean the playoff system is inadequate just because in some years, the best team doesn’t win.

      The postseason is not a crapshoot. And predictability has no place in the discussion.

      Ricketson wrote:

      I thought this discussion was over?

      So did I??

    30. Ricketson
      August 5th, 2013 | 4:43 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Well, when your side admits defeat, I’ll stop for good.

      We haven’t had anyone legendary in the employment of facts and logic declare our argument “kicked to the curb,” so I didn’t think that an admission of defeat was appropriate.

      PHMDen wrote:

      The postseason is not a crapshoot. And predictability has no place in the discussion.

      @ Evan3457:
      You can have the last word.

    31. Kamieniecki
      August 5th, 2013 | 6:12 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Do you even realize you’re arguing the postseason’s unpredictable because it’s unpredictable?

    32. Kamieniecki
      August 5th, 2013 | 7:07 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      By any reasonable measure, the 1969 Orioles were a far better team than the 1969 Mets. The Mets still starched them in 5 games.

      The 69 Mets had four pitchers named Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Nolan Ryan, and Gary Gentry that pitched to a 1.94 ERA in the series.

      The team that ended the 1998-2000 title run for the Yankees in 2001? Arizona. What did their post-season rotation look like?

      Five-Time Cy Young Award-winner Randy Johnson, including 2001, who led baseball in strikeouts with 372. That’s not a typo: 372 strikeouts in the 2001 season.

      Six-time All-Star Curt Schilling that went 22-6 with a 2.98 ERA and 293 strikeouts.

      The two had a miniscule 1.36 ERA. The Yankees taking the series to the 9th of Game 7 and within outs of a 4th straight title was a testament to how truly great those teams were.

    33. Ricketson
      August 5th, 2013 | 7:47 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      Appeal to authority is ALWAYS fallacious. You cannot appeal to authority and say was not fallacious to do so because what the authority asserted or claimed was correct.

      That John Cashman’s son is great in bed because Louise Meanwell, a psychologically-imbalanced woman he had an extramarital affair with, said so is no more a valid argument than the argument that the postseason is “much more a crapshoot than not” because Bruce Bochy said it is “a bit of a craphsoot,” whether Meanwell or Bochy is correct or not. Mary Bresnan would likely say Cashman is lousy in bed (if she would comment at all on a such a question in an interview), as he is lousy in the general management of a baseball team.

      Any idiot can spend $200-30 mil. and put an offense on the field that is no. 1 or no. 2 in the league with the most three of the most difficult positions to fill (catcher, shortstop, and second base) already in place.

    34. August 5th, 2013 | 9:04 pm

      One more day to get your closing comments in this one, folks. Then, it’s closing time.

    35. Garcia
      August 5th, 2013 | 9:14 pm

      Holy cow! A post from 2010 was just resurrected – this is something my significant other does quite often.

    36. Evan3457
      August 6th, 2013 | 12:48 am

      PHMDen wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Hitters don’t score earned runs
      What do you call a player that hits a baseball with a bat, draws a walk with a bat in his hands, etc. resulting in a run scored that can be charged to a pitcher? Is “hitter” not an appropriate term?

      Hitters score “runs.” That’s what it’s called. There is no earned runs category for hitters.

      The Yankees were league-average from 2005-7 in ERA. The Yankees were first or second in team average, runs scored, etc. in each year from 2005-7.

      And they were well above average in runs allowed (fewer runs than average the last 3 years. 20 runs better in 2010, 60 better in 2011 and 2012.

      Appeal to authority is ALWAYS fallacious. You cannot appeal to authority and say was not fallacious to do so because what the authority asserted or claimed was correct. What is the “definitive proof” of either Beane or Bochy that the MLB postseason is a “crapshoot?”

      If the underlying argument is not fallacious, then it is not fallacious.
      <blockquote
      Again: an unpredictable venture”. That’s one definition of crapshoot.

      Yes, it is. We’re making progress.

      Thank you; I’m familiar with the term. And for those terms that are unfamiliar to me, there are dictionaries and resources available online to assist me.

      Try using one once in a while.

      If you’re saying the system for determination of a league champion and world champion in Major League baseball is not inadequate, and the New York Yankees failed to win more than 5/11 series from 2005-12 not because of deficiencies in that system but because the team’s starting pitching was outperformed in most or all series as the most significant reason and for lesser reasons, we would seem to agree.

      No, that’s not what I’m saying and you know it.

      If you’re saying that teams that are closer to first in offense overall and first in ERA in a league tend to be luckier in the long term than teams that are closer to first in offense overall and seventh in ERA in a league, we agree.

      No, a team first in both categories tends to be better than a team in first in one of them. Doesn’t mean they’ll always win a short post-season series, though.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Well, that’s part of my point. There are some random elements in any sports contest.
      We’ve spent hours on this discussion over the course of days to arrive at this “point” (no pun intended)?

      What part of the word “part” is beyond your comprehension?

      The postseason is not a crapshoot. And predictability has no place in the discussion.

      Back to square one for you.

      Ricketson wrote:
      I thought this discussion was over?
      So did I??

      Apparently, it’s over tomorrow (today). Probably a good idea.

    37. Evan3457
      August 6th, 2013 | 12:49 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Do you even realize you’re arguing the postseason’s unpredictable because it’s unpredictable?

      Exactly. Congratulations. You’re almost there.

      It’s unpredictable. And an unpredictable venture is a….

      ….come one, you can say it. They know…

    38. Evan3457
      August 6th, 2013 | 12:50 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      PHMDen wrote:
      Appeal to authority is ALWAYS fallacious. You cannot appeal to authority and say was not fallacious to do so because what the authority asserted or claimed was correct.
      That John Cashman’s son is great in bed because Louise Meanwell, a psychologically-imbalanced woman he had an extramarital affair with, said so is no more a valid argument than the argument that the postseason is “much more a crapshoot than not” because Bruce Bochy said it is “a bit of a craphsoot,” whether Meanwell or Bochy is correct or not. Mary Bresnan would likely say Cashman is lousy in bed (if she would comment at all on a such a question in an interview), as he is lousy in the general management of a baseball team.
      Any idiot can spend $200-30 mil. and put an offense on the field that is no. 1 or no. 2 in the league with the most three of the most difficult positions to fill (catcher, shortstop, and second base) already in place.

      More white noise.

    39. Evan3457
      August 6th, 2013 | 12:51 am

      @ Steve L.:
      As always, I respect your decision. It seems like a good idea, as there’s no progress being made.

    40. PHMDen
      August 6th, 2013 | 12:46 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Hitters score “runs.” That’s what it’s called. There is no earned runs category for hitters.

      Once again, what I wrote was quite clear and self-explanatory, and your response is one that adds nothing to the discussion.
      Earned runs score as a result of hitter action or inaction, or behavior, except in a rare occurrence such as a wild pitch with a runner on third. Your post provides no useful information.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Appeal to authority is ALWAYS fallacious. You cannot appeal to authority and say was not fallacious to do so because what the authority asserted or claimed was correct. What is the “definitive proof” of either Beane or Bochy that the MLB postseason is a “crapshoot?”
      If the underlying argument is not fallacious, then it is not fallacious.

      WRONG. Appeal to Authority is a valid form of argument in only certain circumstances. Your Appeal to the Authority of Beane as an SME (Subject Matter Expert) is on the basis of 22 words (if I counted correctly).

      Almost your entire argument is that someone you consider to be an SME spoke 22 words that you interpret to assert the Major League Baseball playoffs are a crapshoot because luck is involved. That may not be a completely or perfectly accurate representation of what you’ve written, of all of the re-formulations that you have offered (I’ll get to that in a minute), but I think it is a fair representation of what you’ve written.

      Your argument is also that the playoffs are a crapshoot or “mostly” a crapshoot because someone else you consider to be an SME said the playoffs are “a bit” of a crapshoot. A “crapshoot or mostly a crapshoot” is not the same thing as what your SME said, or “a bit” of a crapshoot. Thus, your Appeal to Authority of two SMEs does not support your argument.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Doesn’t mean they’ll always win a short post-season series, though.

      Ricketson wrote:

      IF IT’S NOT A CRAPSHOOT OVER 162 GAMES IN A REGULAR SEASON, THEN IT’S NOT A CRAPSHOOT OVER 152 GAMES IN 24 POSTSEASON SERIES FROM 2005-12.

      Where does the word “always” appear in the preceding quote.

      I’ve revisited the history of this discussion across at least 3 threads. It appears to have started with one commenters assertion that the team should have won more since 2005. A second commenter replied that all that matters is getting to the playoffs because the playoffs are a “crapshoot.” The first commenter disagreed with the reply of the second commenter and at one point you entered the discussion. At no point had the term “predictability” been used.

      Your first argument was that the postseason is a “crapshoot” because there is less than a 50% probability of winning the World Series. The response to your argument was that the playoffs and the World Series are not necessarily the same thing, and the Yankees still failed to win more than 50% of the SERIES PLAYED since 2005 not because the playoffs are a crapshoot, but because the teams’ starting pitching was not as good as it could have been, with the 1996-2001 teams offered in a comparison.

      At some point, your argument seemed to have become that the results of a playoff series are not predictable and the fact that only 3 teams with the best WPCT for the reg. season have won the World Series since 1995 shows that. And that the argument that in 120 of 126 playoff series since 1995 the team that scored the most earned runs against starting pitching or the team that yielded the fewest earned runs against against starting pitching was somehow fallacious or “hindsight” while your argument relating to WPCT in only 18 playoff series was not fallacious or “hindsight.”

      Finally, you have referred to what you consider to be two SMEs in an Appeal to Authority, and in both cases your argument is not consistent with the assertions of either SME. Beane has not said the playoffs are a crapshoot or mostly a crapshoot because the results of the playoffs cannot be predicted before the playoffs begin, and Bochy did not say the playoffs are a crapshoot or mostly a crapshoot, he essentially has said that some luck is involved.

      Some luck is involved in every inning, game, and series from the first pitch on Opening Day in March or April, to the last pitch of the deciding Game of the World Series in October. Why does the New York Yankees’ run of 14/16 playoff series won, 5 pennants, and 4 World Series titles become something less than what it was to most or more attributable or randomness or luck with 22 words spoken by one GM, Billy Beane?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      By any reasonable measure, the 1969 Orioles were a far better team than the 1969 Mets. The
      Mets still starched them in 5 games.

      You haven’t explained why Major League scouts are not SMEs. Was there a consensus of Major League scouts in 1969 or 1970 that the New York Mets’ victory in the 1969 World Series was not predictable?

      Tom Seaver had one of the best arms of the second half of the Twentieth Century. Jerry Koosman was one of the best pitchers of his day. Nolan Ryan had the best arm of the Twentieth Century.

      Were major league scouts all over the country rushed unconscious to emergency rooms when they watched the final out of the 1969 World Series because they could not have predicted in their wildest imaginations that these 3 pitchers and Gentry would outperform Baltimore’s starting pitching in the most important aspect of playoff competition?