baseball playoffs

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Humans crave certainty, predictability, and rationality. Evidenced lots of places (religion, economic theory, physics, conspiracy theories like that Oswald couldn't have been a lone gunman, because it bespeaks randomness and disproportionality for a nobody to kill the leader of the free world).

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.

I disagree with your conclusion, people into metrics understand all 4 are at play, they just focus on the one that can be measured. (and understand how the numbers point out the randomness and luck associated with the game, especially in small sample sizes)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I disagree with your conclusion, people into metrics understand all 4 are at play, they just focus on the one that can be measured. (and understand how the numbers point out the randomness and luck associated with the game, especially in small sample sizes)

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

It's just small sample size booboo.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's just small sample size booboo.

nothing funnier than watching ignorant people revel in their stupidity.

"I don't like book learnin, it's fer nerds, mama gimme another possum pecker sandwich!"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

nothing funnier than watching ignorant people revel in their stupidity.

"I don't like book learnin, it's fer nerds, mama gimme another possum pecker sandwich!"

That's an argument ad hominem, no? Or is it ad ursum?